Escape From Duggarville

[VeritasMama]

It certainly is easier to brush people off as overly sensitive than to be more careful with our speech.

True, but honestly the list of words and phrases that are considered offensive is changing every day, it's become impossible for people to keep up.

[Slartibartfast]

Not quite.  No one used "birth control" bc there wasn't any, really.  It was a reflection on the character of irish women and men that they never stopped doing it.  Like animals.  

 

Condoms have been around for quite awhile and the first IUD was created in 1920. Casanova is recorded to have used, "assurance caps."

[ElizaG]

But, it is a drink commonly found in bars (even Irish pubs) across the USA. Plenty of people think the name is harmless. Plenty of people think other slurs are harmless. One would hope that when someone says, "hey, that is a slur, let's not use that," then people wouldn't brush the slur off as harmless. The blog author clearly changed it for just that reason. But, some people obviously do brush it off as harmless, as some posts in the thread prove. That was the point I was getting at.

I'm not sure I'd call the name of the drink a "slur" against the Irish.  It's more something that's horribly insensitive to the human suffering that occurred, and that still affects the survivors today.   And unlike some of the other terms that were mentioned in this thread, it's clear that people in Ireland do generally find it offensive on those grounds.

 

http://www.evoke.ie/now/disney-world-serves-guinness-bombs-at-their-irish-themed-pub-in-florida-but-most-americans-know-the-cocktail-as-an-irish-car-bomb/

http://www.joe.ie/news/world-affairs/would-you-eat-an-irish-car-bomb/

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/irish-car-bomb-cocktail-banner-banned-at-uk-site-of-two-bombings-624905.html

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057008915

 

More to the point, I don't think it's helpful to try to lump everything that somebody, somewhere, considers offensive, into the same category.  For instance, even in the United States, the vast majority of people would agree that a car bomb is a terrible thing.  The question in this case is whether or not it's appropriate to joke about it.   (Some posts at the above links have suggested that it's comparable to people outside the United States having a drink called "Twin Towers" or "School Shooting.")

 

On the other hand, having two babies in a year can be seen as anywhere on the spectrum from a great blessing, to an unexpected event to be accepted with wry humor, to (apparently, if posts on here are to be believed) a sign that the parents are sub-human.    :huh:   Even though Irish parents these days tend to have fewer children than they used to, my impression is still very much that most of them tend more toward the first two attitudes, than to the latter.  

[Slartibartfast]

Not only that, but from the etymologies I've seen, it's likely that the Irish themselves invented the term "hooligan."  They certainly enjoy using it.  If you use Google to search for the word at boards.ie, there are almost 4000 results.   

 

I think "Irish twins" must be more of an American expression.  I don't remember hearing it before moving to the US, and searching .ie sites turns up a much smaller number of references.  But none of the ones I've looked at seems to find it offensive.  More just slightly amusing (and usually in the context of posts from mothers who are soon to be in that situation).   

 

 

As a practicing Catholic whose extended family is mostly ethnically Irish (including one close relative who's an immigrant), I find it derogatory that some people think it's "derogatory" to imply that the Irish weren't historically concerned with spacing their children.  This interpretation would only hold up if you assume that there's something wrong with that country's traditional attitudes to faith and family.   Otherwise, it could be seen as a neutral expression, or even a positive one.  

 

For instance, there's a well known Irish toast that includes the line, "Leanbh gach bliain agat" -- "A child every year to you."  It's meant to be a blessing, not an insult.   :001_smile:

 

Do not put words in my mouth.

 

Some of my family also came from Ireland. The ORIGIN of the phrase is derogatory. I didn't say it was derogatory because I am patronizing Irish, I *AM* Irish. I am giving *factual* information.  People who are being bigots are rarely concerned with whether or not the group they are discriminating against actually does engage in those behaviors. 

 

There are always going to be a certain group of people that are migrating in greater numbers than others depending on various issues happening around the world.

 

At one time there were many people coming from Ireland, people would say nasty things about them just as people are always saying nasty things about people coming from Mexico and Latin countries now.

 

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/immigration/irish5.html

 

[VeritasMama]

Condoms have been around for quite awhile and the first IUD was created in 1920. Casanova is recorded to have used, "assurance caps."

Herbal spermicides and abortificatients have also been around for thousands of years. It's hormonal BC that is new, and the morality has changed. Prior to 1930 all Christian denominations condemned the use of artificial birth control on doctrinal grounds. The Church of England endorsed using artificial birth control under certain circumstances in a resolution at the 1930 Lambeth conference, and in the next few decades other denominations followed suit.

 

http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/1930-15.cfm

[Slartibartfast]

Herbal spermicides and abortificatients have also been around for thousands of years. It's hormonal BC that is new, and the morality has changed. Prior to 1930 all Christian denominations condemned the use of artificial birth control on doctrinal grounds. The Church of England endorsed using artificial birth control under certain circumstances in a resolution at the 1930 Lambeth conference, and in the next few decades other denominations followed suit.

 

http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/1930-15.cfm

 

They actually did during the Inquisition. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summis_desiderantes_affectibus

[VeritasMama]

They actually did during the Inquisition.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summis_desiderantes_affectibus

I'm not sure what you are saying, or what it has to do with what I'm saying. Artificial birth control has always been condemned by the Catholic Church and was also condemned by Protestants up until 1930. I'm not sure what this Papal Bull has to do with that fact. The Papal Bull you linked too doesn't actually add anything to the conversation, unless you want to talk about the abuses of the Inquisition, but that seems pretty off topic.

[Slartibartfast]

I'm not sure what you are saying, or what it has to do with what I'm saying. Artificial birth control has always been condemned by the Catholic Church and was also condemned by Protestants up until 1930. I'm not sure what this Papal Bull has to do with that fact. The Papal Bull you linked too doesn't actually add anything to the conversation, unless you want to talk about the abuses of the Inquisition, but that seems pretty off topic.

 

That Bull does mention birth control but as something that witches assist with, it was one of the things that could be used as an accusation of witchcraft.

 

I think one can read more of it here

 

http://carmichaeldigitalprojects.org/hist447/exhibits/show/the-devil-s-mistress--witchcra/item/67

 

I thought it was interesting.

[AMJ]

This applies in a larger sense but also on a person to person level, I can't say I relish the thought of what happens if my idiot relative reproduces AGAIN with someone who can't be a good mother. Not only is it hard for the kids, it's hard for those of us that step up because it's the only right thing to do. I often have 2-3 additional kids with me because they need a stable environment. It's a joy to be able to help kids in need but it doesn't come free for me or my husband. Many of the only times my reproduction happy relative's kids get a number of their needs met- physical, emotional, social, is when they are with me and my husband. It's draining and I am not selfish to say that the kids in question unequivocally don't deserve the shit both of their parents put them through at times. Stable, helpful relatives and community members can't make up for the hole in the kids' life because they have a rotten, selfish, abusive and neglectful father. I can't change my relative but I've also earned the right to be skeptical about the consequences of him fathering more children. Having children can be a profoundly selfish thing to do.

 

I know someone like that, too (only it's the mother, not the father), and am heartily impressed with her sister and BIL, who are fostering her kids as well as raising their own.  DH and I have told them so, and told them repeatedly that we will do anything we can to help them.  It is a massive task, and heartbreaking to see the kids deal with their realizations about their own mother.

[AMJ]

The whole thing about having kids close in age so they will have a built in buddy is complete bunk.  You can force kids to play together, but that doesn't mean they will like each other.  I've personally known plenty of close-age siblings who spent more time wailing the heck out of each other or trying to avoid each other than being buddies.   

 

That would be my brother and me.

[Reefgazer]

To compare the links you posted (which document individual/group sexism) with the following laws that legally institutionalized discrimination (all of which were legal in my lifetime) is precisely the reason I refuse to call myself a feminist anymore.  For instance, in my lifetime:

 

1.  In 1968, it was legal for the school district where I attended school to demand girls where dresses/ skirts to public school, even in -10 degree weather.

 

2.  Up until 1972, it was legal for states to deny women birth control.

 

3.  Up until 1968, it was legal to not hire a woman for any type of job simply because of her femaleness.  You could even put this in a newspaper ad.  The civil rights act changed that.

 

4.  Until 1974, it was legal to deny a married woman credit without her husband's permission.

 

5.  Until 1976, women could not be admitted to any military academy.

 

6.  Until 1978, it was still perfectly legal to fire a woman for being pregnant.

    

To complain of a football league not handling a domestic violence case to your liking, or to complain of inappropriate remarks about a congresswoman's backside, or complain because some women in the military feel they can't talk about sexism is trivializing the real, legally-sanctioned discrimination against women in this country until the 1980s.  Even worse are those calling for equal pay for equal work when the jobs/work being compared are not even the same actual job.  Until the incessant whining about relatively trivial nonsense stops, I won't be identifying myself as a feminist any time soon.  Based on the classroom survey you mentioned, I have lots of company.

 

Not identifying with Christianity because I don't agree with certain doctrine isn't even comparable, because if a person is Protestant (I am) they can find a denomination that suits them, or simply home church and not join a denomination at all.  It's all Christianity.  A teacher who has different methods than I do is not in the same category, either, as long as I am not forced to teach as she teaches.

 

Would you not call yourself a Christian because you disagree with some Christians and their definition of the word (in theory)? Or would you not identify yourself as a teacher because you disagree with the manner in which some people teach?

There is still very serious, blatant and real discrimination against women.

Have you missed the recent news stories on sexism within the halls of Congress?

What about news stories like this?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/28/justice/montana-teacher-rape-sentence/

Or this?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/10/sexism-military_n_4574500.html

Or this?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/09/us/nfl-players-domestic-violence-accusations/

Or this?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oscar-pistorius-free-to-run-again-south-african-olympic-committee-says/

 

[AMJ]

you can't even expect they'll hit their different milestones spaced out . . . (snicker.)  I know one woman who spaced them quite a bit with intent they would do things in different years . . .  they ALL got married the same summer.

 

(and another friend who finally got her reluctant son potty trained - and immediately her much younger dd wanted big girl pants. it stressed her out  - at least she really was ready and willing.)

 

DH's two brothers and their families are close enough to us to get together regularly and share supplies and hand-me-downs.  We had a nice progression of girls' clothing going for a while.  Eldest niece to DD13 to next eldest niece to DD10 to youngest niece.  Until DD13 hit puberty and changed shape, next eldest niece shot right up height-wise (and has feet to match), and youngest niece passed DD10 by size-wise.  Nope, now the whole progression of handing stuff around is all mixed up and goes every which way!

[Slartibartfast]

To compare the links you posted (which document individual/group sexism) with the following laws that legally institutionalized discrimination (all of which were legal in my lifetime) is precisely the reason I refuse to call myself a feminist anymore.  For instance, in my lifetime:

 

1.  In 1968, it was legal for the school district where I attended school to demand girls where dresses/ skirts to public school, even in -10 degree weather.

 

2.  Up until 1972, it was legal for states to deny women birth control.

 

3.  Up until 1968, it was legal to not hire a woman for any type of job simply because of her femaleness.  You could even put this in a newspaper ad.  The civil rights act changed that.

 

4.  Until 1974, it was legal to deny a married woman credit without her husband's permission.

 

5.  Until 1976, women could not be admitted to any military academy.

 

6.  Until 1978, it was still perfectly legal to fire a woman for being pregnant.

    

To complain of a football league not handling a domestic violence case to your liking, or to complain of inappropriate remarks about a congresswoman's backside, or complain because some women in the military feel they can't talk about sexism is trivializing the real, legally-sanctioned discrimination against women in this country until the 1980s.  Even worse are those calling for equal pay for equal work when the jobs/work being compared are not even the same actual job.  Until the incessant whining about relatively trivial nonsense stops, I won't be identifying myself as a feminist any time soon.  Based on the classroom survey you mentioned, I have lots of company.

 

Not identifying with Christianity because I don't agree with certain doctrine isn't even comparable, because if a person is Protestant (I am) they can find a denomination that suits them, or simply home church and not join a denomination at all.  It's all Christianity.  A teacher who has different methods than I do is not in the same category, either, as long as I am not forced to teach as she teaches.

 

Domestic violence is trivial?

[ElizaG]

Do not put words in my mouth.

 

Some of my family also came from Ireland. The ORIGIN of the phrase is derogatory. I didn't say it was derogatory because I am patronizing Irish, I *AM* Irish. I am giving *factual* information.  People who are being bigots are rarely concerned with whether or not the group they are discriminating against actually does engage in those behaviors. 

When I talked about some attitudes and assumptions being derogatory, I wasn't referring to you personally, but to the sort of reasoning that's being used on a large number of posts that are making the rounds of the Internet (see e.g. Google search for "irish twins" + "derogatory"), and that have been cited on this thread.  

 

For the most part, these posts are asserting that the term is "clearly" derogatory, not based on any specific historical evidence about the way it's been used, but simply because it draws an association between being Irish and not using contraception.  

 

Maybe you aren't referring to this sort of thing, and have some other basis for your beliefs about the origin of the phrase.   If so, then what I've said above wouldn't apply to you.   My apologies if the wording of my post sounded otherwise.  

[Reefgazer]

People run around looking for a reason to be offended and whine these days. Calling someone out as "offensive" or telling them their POV is "offensive" has come to be an attempt to shut up people with opposing viewpoints or customs.  It's gotten to the point where I just accept that we all have the right to be offended, and we all have the right to offend. 

I think is it because it would be impossible to eliminate all offensive speech, people simply find new words and "dog whistles" to become enraged over.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try not to offend, but political correctness has reached a point where it's impossible not to offend someone.

[Mrs Mungo]

To complain of a football league not handling a domestic violence case to your liking, or to complain of inappropriate remarks about a congresswoman's backside, or complain because some women in the military feel they can't talk about sexism is trivializing the real, legally-sanctioned discrimination against women in this country until the 1980s.  Even worse are those calling for equal pay for equal work when the jobs/work being compared are not even the same actual job.  Until the incessant whining about relatively trivial nonsense stops, I won't be identifying myself as a feminist any time soon.  Based on the classroom survey you mentioned, I have lots of company.

If you think all of the problems that I linked are trivial, then we have zero common ground on this issue.

 

Not identifying with Christianity because I don't agree with certain doctrine isn't even comparable, because if a person is Protestant (I am) they can find a denomination that suits them, or simply home church and not join a denomination at all.  It's all Christianity.  A teacher who has different methods than I do is not in the same category, either, as long as I am not forced to teach as she teaches.

Nobody is forcing you to believe the same thing that all feminists believe. But, if you think NFL players knocking out their girlfriends and receiving a slap on the wrist is trivial or a teacher raping a student and receiving a slap on a wrist is trivial, then we probably can't have a discussion.

[VeritasMama]

That Bull does mention birth control but as something that witches assist with, it was one of the things that could be used as an accusation of witchcraft.

 

I think one can read more of it here

 

http://carmichaeldigitalprojects.org/hist447/exhibits/show/the-devil-s-mistress--witchcra/item/67

 

I thought it was interesting.

I see. It seemed as though you were trying to imply that this Bull represented the first time that artificial birth control was condemned, but the condemnation of "pharmakea" which was a mix of witchcraft and herbal medicine, including birth control, was condemned from the earliest days of the church.

 

It seems odd to modern readers to condemn it as"witchcraft," but at that time herbal medicine was practiced with many spells and charms to go along with the "potions," it wasn't just medicine, and there was a superstitious "magic" element involved.

 

Not that that justifies witch hunts. The topic of the inquisition and the European witch hunts seems off topic, it is a pretty extensive topic in itself. But you are right, it is very interesting.

[Reefgazer]

The violence isn't trivial, but to complain about the football league's handling of it is because there is no law saying a football league must handle domestic violence offenders the way it does.  That is, there is no institutionalized law in place that prevents the NFL from changing it's policies this very minute.  That they do not is because people, including millions of women, buy tickets and NFL items with their money.  If it's that bad, stop buying.  Because there is also no law that says you *must* buy.  Now you can call me offensive for that opinion, and I'll tell you that you have the right to be offended.

Domestic violence is trivial?

 

[CaffeineDiary]

People run around looking for a reason to be offended and whine these days. Calling someone out as "offensive" or telling them their POV is "offensive" has come to be an attempt to shut up people with opposing viewpoints or customs.  It's gotten to the point where I just accept that we all have the right to be offended, and we all have the right to offend. 

 

I don't get it.  We're not really talking about hypothetical "people running around," we're talking about people on this board that we are talking to, right now, who have told us that these terms offend them or hurt their feelings.  Completely apart from who is right or wrong about the historical context, why in the world would anyone decide to die on the hill of I Will Continue To Use These Things You Say Are Slurs in polite conversation with someone who has asked you to stop?

 

(That's the generic 'you', there, not necessarily 'you, reef gazer'.)

[Reefgazer]

I guess if you can't see the difference between 1) a law that institutionalizes sex discrimination/mandates sex discrimination and 2) a situation where there is no law mandating such discrimination but where it is nevertheless commonplace, then we probably do not have any common ground.

 

ETA:  No one is *promoting* raping a child.  It is illegal and has always been illegal in the US.  Your complaint about the sentence the offender received is a complaint against a judge's sentence, not against an institutionalized law that requires slaps on the wrist for such crimes. 

If you think all of the problems that I linked are trivial, then we have zero common ground on this issue.
 

Nobody is forcing you to believe the same thing that all feminists believe. But, if you think NFL players knocking out their girlfriends and receiving a slap on the wrist is trivial or a teacher raping a student and receiving a slap on a wrist is trivial, then we probably can't have a discussion.

 

[Mrs Mungo]

The violence isn't trivial, but to complain about the football league's handling of it is because there is no law saying a football league must handle domestic violence offenders the way it does.  That is, there is no institutionalized law in place that prevents the NFL from changing it's policies this very minute.  That they do not is because people, including millions of women, buy tickets and NFL items with their money.  If it's that bad, stop buying.  Because there is also no law that says you *must* buy.

By offering only a slap on a wrist to players who abuse their partners and/or children, the NFL is the one saying that the violence is trivial, that it doesn't matter. In contrast, Matt Prater was suspended for more games for drinking beer while on vacation at his house (he received a DUI in 2011, so was on probation). That trivialization of domestic violence bleeds out into society at large when it is regularly in the news. Many men regularly consume the sort of sports news that would feature such stories.

[Mrs Mungo]

I guess if you can't see the difference between 1) a law that institutionalizes sex discrimination/mandates sex discrimination and 2) a situation where there is no law mandating such discrimination but where it is nevertheless commonplace, then we probably do not have any common ground.

You don't see that there is a continuum on which some of us would like to continue forward rather than going back? We are quickly sliding back into a stage of birth control being made illegal, recent court cases were only one step in that ultimate goal from some quarters. When we don't fight to continue down the continuum toward greater equality, we slide back. You don't have a problem with systemic discrimination, unless it is legally mandated, is that your claim?

[Mrs Mungo]

ETA:  No one is *promoting* raping a child.  It is illegal and has always been illegal in the US.  Your complaint about the sentence the offender received is a complaint against a judge's sentence, not against an institutionalized law that requires slaps on the wrist for such crimes.

What is the difference when the result is the same? You don't think judges should be held accountable for their legally binding decisions?

[Mrs Mungo]

I see. It seemed as though you were trying to imply that this Bull represented the first time that artificial birth control was condemned, but the condemnation of "pharmakea" which was a mix of witchcraft and herbal medicine, including birth control, was condemned from the earliest days of the church.

 

It seems odd to modern readers to condemn it as"witchcraft," but at that time herbal medicine was practiced with many spells and charms to go along with the "potions," it wasn't just medicine, and there was a superstitious "magic" element involved.

Many, MANY people would argue that there is still is very much a superstitious/magical element involved still, it just presents as medical theater now. The psychological aspect of healing is unquestionable.

[Reefgazer]

Better question:  Why not get over being offended by every. single word. when no harm was intended?  A thread is rolling about a conversation on the board somewhere, and all the sudden, someone picks out a single thing someone says and screams "I'm offended", and the thread is derailed.  I will not take that bait anymore if/when someone calls me offensive.  OK, someone's offended; they have that right, move on.     

 

I don't go around intentionally offending.  But nor will I censor my opinions because someone does not like them.  I also will not censor how I speak so that  someone can argue with me over the obscure origins of the name of a drink.  For example, someone implied upthread that I thought domestic violence was "trivial" when I clearly indicated that laws that institutionalize discrimination are far worse than quibbles with individual organizations.  I do believe that most people could read that clearly and some chose not to.

I don't get it.  We're not really talking about hypothetical "people running around," we're talking about people on this board that we are talking to, right now, who have told us that these terms offend them or hurt their feelings.  Completely apart from who is right or wrong about the historical context, why in the world would anyone decide to die on the hill of I Will Continue To Use These Things You Say Are Slurs in polite conversation with someone who has asked you to stop?

 

(That's the generic 'you', there, not necessarily 'you, reef gazer'.)

 

[Slartibartfast]

The violence isn't trivial, but to complain about the football league's handling of it is because there is no law saying a football league must handle domestic violence offenders the way it does.  That is, there is no institutionalized law in place that prevents the NFL from changing it's policies this very minute.  That they do not is because people, including millions of women, buy tickets and NFL items with their money.  If it's that bad, stop buying.  Because there is also no law that says you *must* buy.  Now you can call me offensive for that opinion, and I'll tell you that you have the right to be offended.

 

I disagree, the behavior of players should be held to the highest standard.  Teams are not ONLY supported by ticket sales. The cities usually pay for their stadiums and they should be representatives of that city. Smacking women around, dog fighting and stealing are not acceptable. It isn't ONLY women's issues that come to light during this sort of controversy and blaming feminism and saying it is trivial to expect players to adhere to the law and certain standards of behavior is not reasonable. It is illegal to hit people. It is illegal to steal. It is illegal to participate in dog fighting.

 

If MY tax dollars are supporting a team one better believe I expect them not to behave like lunatics while living in my city. 

 

Sponsors are applying pressure as well.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/09/16/nfl-anheuser-busch-sponsor-domestic-abuse-sponsor/15726217/

[Reefgazer]

OK, two thoughts:

1.  We (US citizens, collectively) could shut down the NFL franchise within weeks if we stopped buying their product.  Or even threatened to.  So a more effective target would be those of us (or even ourselves) who buy their garbage.  Watch how fast things change when their wallet is hurting.

 

2.  Ray Rice's job is football.  Bill Clinton's job was government.  The professor down the hall who cheats on his wife has a job teaching chemistry.  There are some who would make the argument that a person's job is separate from their personal lives and not the business of the employer. 

By offering only a slap on a wrist to players who abuse their partners and/or children, the NFL is the one saying that the violence is trivial, that it doesn't matter. In contrast, Matt Prater was suspended for more games for drinking beer while on vacation at his house (he received a DUI in 2011, so was on probation). That trivialization of domestic violence bleeds out into society at large when it is regularly in the news. Many men regularly consume the sort of sports news that would feature such stories.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Better question:  Why not get over being offended by every. single word. when no harm was intended?  A thread is rolling about a conversation on the board somewhere, and all the sudden, someone picks out a single thing someone says and screams "I'm offended", and the thread is derailed.  I will not take that bait anymore if/when someone calls me offensive.  OK, someone's offended; they have that right, move on.     

 

I don't go around intentionally offending.  But nor will I censor my opinions because someone does not like them.  I also will not censor how I speak so that  someone can argue with me over the obscure origins of the name of a drink.  For example, someone implied upthread that I thought domestic violence was "trivial" when I clearly indicated that laws that institutionalize discrimination are far worse than quibbles with individual organizations.  I do believe that most people could read that clearly and some chose not to.

 

How exactly is it obscure when the name is "Irish carbomb?" That isn't something we should even need to google, I remember seeing it discussed on the news. That was still going on in the 90s, that wasn't hundreds of years ago.

 

I did say that about domestic violence being trivial. I do think the NFL should take it seriously.

[Reefgazer]

This will be the last thing I have to say on this specific topic, only because a thread on this topic was already locked and I don't want to cause locking of this thread.  But birth control is not in any danger of being illegal; the SCOTUS made it illegal to deny birth control to women (see my post above).  Anyone is free to pay for their own birth control.  They are not free to expect that someone else will pay for it for them.

 

ETA:  I believe every single person has the right as a private citizen to discriminate.  I do not believe the government or government agencies should discriminate, nor should government institutions discriminate.  But private citizens should have the right to live as they wish, without government interference.  I do not discriminate.  But I do feel that I have the right to not associate with someone who is say...red headed, short, catholic.  So what?  If I don't want to play ball with someone, why should I, a private citizen, be forced to?

You don't see that there is a continuum on which some of us would like to continue forward rather than going back? We are quickly sliding back into a stage of birth control being made illegal, recent court cases were only one step in that ultimate goal from some quarters. When we don't fight to continue down the continuum toward greater equality, we slide back. You don't have a problem with systemic discrimination, unless it is legally mandated, is that your claim?

 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Better question:  Why not get over being offended by every. single word. when no harm was intended?  A thread is rolling about a conversation on the board somewhere, and all the sudden, someone picks out a single thing someone says and screams "I'm offended", and the thread is derailed.  I will not take that bait anymore if/when someone calls me offensive.  OK, someone's offended; they have that right, move on.     

 

I don't go around intentionally offending.  But nor will I censor my opinions because someone does not like them.  I also will not censor how I speak so that  someone can argue with me over the obscure origins of the name of a drink.  For example, someone implied upthread that I thought domestic violence was "trivial" when I clearly indicated that laws that institutionalize discrimination are far worse than quibbles with individual organizations.  I do believe that most people could read that clearly and some chose not to.

 

What?

 

I did not scream "I'm offended" nor purposely derail the thread. The post still stands. You can have another look and see that I voiced a small, infrequent protest with every expectation that it would be disregarded or disagreed with (which is why I do it so infrequently), and I let it go fairly easily. It was not bait.

 

This is crazy.

[Catwoman]

I disagree, the behavior of players should be held to the highest standard. Teams are not ONLY supported by ticket sales. The cities usually pay for their stadiums and they should be representatives of that city. Smacking women around, dog fighting and stealing are not acceptable. It isn't ONLY women's issues that come to light during this sort of controversy and blaming feminism and saying it is trivial to expect players to adhere to the law and certain standards of behavior is not reasonable. It is illegal to hit people. It is illegal to steal. It is illegal to participate in dog fighting.

 

Sponsors are applying pressure as well.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/09/16/nfl-anheuser-busch-sponsor-domestic-abuse-sponsor/15726217/

As unfortunate as it is, money talks, so I suppose people would be better off complaining to the sponsors instead of just being upset at the NFL. If the NFL starts losing big sponsors, that is when they will make major changes in how they handle these situations.

[Mrs Mungo]

1.  We (US citizens, collectively) could shut down the NFL franchise within weeks if we stopped buying their product.  Or even threatened to.  So a more effective target would be those of us (or even ourselves) who buy their garbage.  Watch how fast things change when their wallet is hurting.

I don't buy anything from the NFL, so me not buying anything would have no affect on their wallet. But, I certainly can speak up and encourage others not to buy. THAT is how we make a difference. If you call it "incessant whining about trivial nonsense," then why would anyone bother to stop buying?

 

 

2.  Ray Rice's job is football.  Bill Clinton's job was government.  The professor down the hall who cheats on his wife has a job teaching chemistry.  There are some who would make the argument that a person's job is separate from their personal lives and not the business of the employer.

I strongly, strongly disagree. Most companies would disagree. My dh works for the government, and we absolutely know people who have been effectively fired for doing MUCH MUCH less than any of the above people. Most companies and ESPECIALLY governments have codes of conduct in place for their workers.

[Mrs Mungo]

This will be the last thing I have to say on this specific topic, only because a thread on this topic was already locked and I don't want to cause locking of this thread.  But birth control is not in any danger of being illegal; the SCOTUS made it illegal to deny birth control to women (see my post above).  Anyone is free to pay for their own birth control.  They are not free to expect that someone else will pay for it for them.

 

ETA:  I believe every single person has the right as a private citizen to discriminate.  I do not believe the government or government agencies should discriminate, nor should government institutions discriminate.  But private citizens should have the right to live as they wish, without government interference.  I do not discriminate.  But I do feel that I have the right to not associate with someone who is say...red headed, short, catholic.  So what?  If I don't want to play ball with someone, why should I, a private citizen, be forced to?

I disagree on the former count. On the latter point, I'm not sure where that comes in? You can associate with whomever you choose. But, when you do business with the public, then that is a different matter.

[CaffeineDiary]

 

I don't go around intentionally offending.  But nor will I censor my opinions because someone does not like them.  I also will not censor how I speak so that  someone can argue with me over the obscure origins of the name of a drink.

 

Man, you must be super-popular at parties.

[Mrs Mungo]

As unfortunate as it is, money talks, so I suppose people would be better off complaining to the sponsors instead of just being upset at the NFL. If the NFL starts losing big sponsors, that is when they will make major changes in how they handle these situations.

Absolutely true. But, if it is simply labeled as whining over trivial nonsense, then why should the sponsors care?

[8circles]

I don't know how the term "Irish twins" originated an I never thought of it as derogatory. I say it rarely but have no problem removing it from my vocabulary - because I have no desire to offend anyone if it is derogatory.

 

I don't see society as being constantly offended. How can you look at the world and NOT see offensive things happening? I have no problem with people pointing out things being offensive. I do, however, tire of people who have no concern for other people's feelings. It isn't hard to not say "Irish twins". If you don't want to chance offending people, stop saying it.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't see society as being constantly offended. How can you look at the world and NOT see offensive things happening? I have no problem with people pointing out things being offensive. I do, however, tire of people who have no concern for other people's feelings. It isn't hard to not say "Irish twins". If you don't want to chance offending people, stop saying it.

I agree. And if you DON'T care about offending people, why bother defending it? Just say "yeah, I don't care if it offends you" and the person will likely just put you on ignore or whatever.

[VeritasMama]

Many, MANY people would argue that there is still is very much a superstitious/magical element involved still, it just presents as medical theater now. The psychological aspect of healing is unquestionable.

Yes, this is an interesting topic. Christians believe that we can be healed through prayers, our own and the prayers of others, and unexplainable recoveries and healings that we Christians would classify as miracles do occur. I suppose you could consider this superstitious, but Christians obviously do not. My own son experienced what I believe to be a miraculous recovery when he was gravely ill as a newborn. We have no way to prove it was a miracle, but the doctors can't really explain why he became ill or why he suddenly recovered. We attribute it to prayer.

 

The concept of mind over matter and the role of positive thinking in healing is fascinating.

[Slartibartfast]

I don't know how the term "Irish twins" originated an I never thought of it as derogatory. I say it rarely but have no problem removing it from my vocabulary - because I have no desire to offend anyone if it is derogatory.

 

I don't see society as being constantly offended. How can you look at the world and NOT see offensive things happening? I have no problem with people pointing out things being offensive. I do, however, tire of people who have no concern for other people's feelings. It isn't hard to not say "Irish twins". If you don't want to chance offending people, stop saying it.

I think the US in particular has many questionable phrases because it is a nation of immigrants people are constantly complaining about. I remember people at school telling Polish jokes all the time. Eek!

[Reefgazer]

For elected judges, the accountability is at the voting booth.  For those appointed, the accountability takes the form of changing the law.

What is the difference when the result is the same? You don't think judges should be held accountable for their legally binding decisions?

 

[Mrs Mungo]

Yes, this is an interesting topic. Christians believe that we can be healed through prayers, our own and the prayers of others, and unexplainable recoveries and healings that we Christians would classify as miracles do occur. I suppose you could consider this superstitious, but Christians obviously do not. My own son experienced what I believe to be a miraculous recovery when he was gravely ill as a newborn. We have no way to prove it was a miracle, but the doctors can't really explain why he became ill or why he suddenly recovered. We attribute it to prayer.

 

The concept of mind over matter and the role of positive thinking in healing is fascinating.

I have definitely seen a faith healer work with my own eyes. I've also seen someone pass away from a grave illness despite prayer.

 

I think a certain amount of psychology/magic/superstition exists within all healing frameworks.

[Mrs Mungo]

For elected judges, the accountability is at the voting booth.  For those appointed, the accountability takes the form of changing the law.

If it is really all trivial nonsense, then accountability isn't needed. Do you think accountability is needed? Would you describe the desire for accountability in such a case to be a feminist cause? Why/why not? If accountability is needed, how do you disseminate the information that accountability is needed without talking about it?

[Mrs Mungo]

What's the topic of this thread again? I'm completely lost.

I would sum it up as:

Patriarchy/systemic discrimination are problems that should be addressed vs. complaints about patriarchy are trivial/people are just whiners these days?

[VeritasMama]

I don't know how the term "Irish twins" originated an I never thought of it as derogatory. I say it rarely but have no problem removing it from my vocabulary - because I have no desire to offend anyone if it is derogatory.

 

I don't see society as being constantly offended. How can you look at the world and NOT see offensive things happening? I have no problem with people pointing out things being offensive. I do, however, tire of people who have no concern for other people's feelings. It isn't hard to not say "Irish twins". If you don't want to chance offending people, stop saying it.

It's like the boy who cries wolf, so many pundits today are constantly pointing out that this word or that word is now offensive that people start to tune it out.

 

The shark was jumped for me when Chris Matthews said that bringing up Chicago was a racist dog whistle.

 

http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/2012/08/is_chicago_the_new_dog_whistle_code_word_for_racism.html

 

I was raised to be polite, sensitive, and politically correct. I try hard not to offend. But it really is getting to the point where anything I say is going to offend someone, and censoring myself to the point I never offend anyone would be impossible and miserable.

 

So, I think some people when faced with this situation go to the other extreme, where they stop worrying about it all together. Like the boy who cried wolf, they start tuning out people who demand they stop being offensive because too many words an phrases are suddenly being deemed offensive. I don't think it is because they are mean, I think it is because it is frustrating to have phrases that were not considered offensive your entire life suddenly be placed on the do not use list, a list that is always changing. Who has time to keep up with that?

 

I'm just trying to say that I can see both sides of the issue.

[Slartibartfast]

If people don't want to argue about trivial nonsense then why even get on the internet?

[Mrs Mungo]

Throw in something about Irish twins who are Gothard-following gypsies, and I might agree with you.

 

How about I just say that this was my favorite episode of My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding?

 

[Slartibartfast]

It's like the boy who cries wolf, so many pundits today are constantly pointing out that this word or that word is now offensive that people start to tune it out.

 

The shark was jumped for me when Chris Matthews said that bringing up Chicago was a racist dog whistle.

 

http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/2012/08/is_chicago_the_new_dog_whistle_code_word_for_racism.html

 

I was raised to be polite, sensitive, and politically correct. I try hard not to offend. But it really is getting to the point where anything I say is going to offend someone, and censoring myself to the point I never offend anyone would be impossible and miserable.

 

So, I think some people when faced with this situation go to the other extreme, where they stop worrying about it all together. Like the boy who cried wolf, they start tuning out people who demand they stop being offensive because too many words an phrases are suddenly being deemed offensive. I don't think it is because they are mean, I think it is because it is frustrating to have phrases that were not considered offensive your entire life suddenly be placed on the do not use list, a list that is always changing. Who has time to keep up with that?

 

I'm just trying to say that I can see both sides of the issue.

I have a hard time seeing much of anything pundits say as rational. I try to avoid them. :lol:

[Mrs Mungo]

I think it is because it is frustrating to have phrases that were not considered offensive your entire life suddenly be placed on the do not use list, a list that is always changing. Who has time to keep up with that?

 

 

Nobody is expected to "keep up with it." It's more of a "consider your audience" type of thing. If someone TELLS me that they find something offensive, then I'm unlikely to continue to use that word/phrase around them. I'm not going to argue with them that it's not really offensive and that they are just being over-sensitive. 

[gardenmom5]

To compare the links you posted (which document individual/group sexism) with the following laws that legally institutionalized discrimination (all of which were legal in my lifetime) is precisely the reason I refuse to call myself a feminist anymore.  For instance, in my lifetime:

 

1.  In 1968, it was legal for the school district where I attended school to demand girls where dresses/ skirts to public school, even in -10 degree weather.

 

2.  Up until 1972, it was legal for states to deny women birth control.

 

3.  Up until 1968, it was legal to not hire a woman for any type of job simply because of her femaleness.  You could even put this in a newspaper ad.  The civil rights act changed that.

 

4.  Until 1974, it was legal to deny a married woman credit without her husband's permission.

 

5.  Until 1976, women could not be admitted to any military academy.

 

6.  Until 1978, it was still perfectly legal to fire a woman for being pregnant.

    

To complain of a football league not handling a domestic violence case to your liking, or to complain of inappropriate remarks about a congresswoman's backside, or complain because some women in the military feel they can't talk about sexism is trivializing the real, legally-sanctioned discrimination against women in this country until the 1980s.  Even worse are those calling for equal pay for equal work when the jobs/work being compared are not even the same actual job.  Until the incessant whining about relatively trivial nonsense stops, I won't be identifying myself as a feminist any time soon.  Based on the classroom survey you mentioned, I have lots of company.

 

Not identifying with Christianity because I don't agree with certain doctrine isn't even comparable, because if a person is Protestant (I am) they can find a denomination that suits them, or simply home church and not join a denomination at all.  It's all Christianity.  A teacher who has different methods than I do is not in the same category, either, as long as I am not forced to teach as she teaches.

 

for me- it's JFK,  teddy kennedy (and chappaquidick) - bill Clinton and the multiple accusations of rape, Kirsten gilibrand complaining about how male senators talk to her - (oh, it's come out it was Daniel innoye. apparently he has a list of women complaining about him behind the scenes.) . . all these males are supported by 'feminists' because they vote the way feminists want them too - but they all treat women like nothing more than a skirt at their disposal.

I put these feminists who support those men in the same category as peta supporters - who throw paint on little old ladies wearing fur, but won't go near a hell's angel biker clad in leather.

 

[Reefgazer]

OK, fair enough; players should not be allowed to break the law.  Then have the legal system prosecute Ray Rice.  But they haven't done so, and I suspect it's because they are doubtful they can get a conviction (for God knows what reason, because the elevator video seems pretty darned clear).  Maybe in the state where the alleged crime occurred you have to have the victim willing to cooperate and his wife is unwilling?  So how do you force her to testify, considering that spouses are usually treated as a unit?  The obvious answer is to have laws that require prosecution in such a case.  So lobby for such laws if that's a worthy cause for you.  I don't know if the laws in the state where the alleged crime occurred are like that.  But if a person remains uncharged, the evidence un-examined in court, and he/she is un-convicted of a crime, then on what basis do you fire them?  At this time, Ray Rice, as despicable as he appears to be, has not been convicted of any crime.

I disagree, the behavior of players should be held to the highest standard.  Teams are not ONLY supported by ticket sales. The cities usually pay for their stadiums and they should be representatives of that city. Smacking women around, dog fighting and stealing are not acceptable. It isn't ONLY women's issues that come to light during this sort of controversy and blaming feminism and saying it is trivial to expect players to adhere to the law and certain standards of behavior is not reasonable. It is illegal to hit people. It is illegal to steal. It is illegal to participate in dog fighting.

 

If MY tax dollars are supporting a team one better believe I expect them not to behave like lunatics while living in my city. 

 

Sponsors are applying pressure as well.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/09/16/nfl-anheuser-busch-sponsor-domestic-abuse-sponsor/15726217/