3 ms·

To describe somebody as 'having' women is often accurate and useful - I do not see why this should be penalised. Can you also see that someone might find th

To describe somebody as 'having' women is often accurate and useful - I do not see why this should be penalised. Can you also see that someone might find this language offensive? That 'having a woman' is somehow vernacular but you don't really see women being described as having 'money, fame, men' ? The language makes women sound like they are possessions.

Pitarou 10y ago
Do you consider fame be a possession, even though it exists entirely in the mind of others?
Normal_gaussian 10y ago
I argue that it is correct to do so. Firstly I show how being grammatically in possession of something is not derogatory: > I have friends I then argue that this usage is in fact desirable > To describe somebody as 'having' women is often accurate and useful Which is followed by stating that I also consider the language to be one sided > Now what does confuse and upset me is the way in which we rarely describe women as being able to have lots of men So when you ask whether I can see that someone might find this language offensive I can only say "evidently". And when you state that we don't see women being described as having men I refer you to my earlier dismay. And when you state that the syntax of the language makes it look like women are possessions I wholeheartedly agree. Can you see that removing reference to "a persons ability to access sexual gratification" is detrimental to the expressiveness of the language?
- kajecounterhack 10y ago
  Firstly I show how being grammatically in possession of something is not derogatory: "Grammatically not being derogatory" is not the same as understanding how something is actually being received. Language is only as useful as it communicates messages, and I think you can believe what you do and still see how someone could find this offensive, given the landscape which you recognize is one-sided. That is just what I meant. Justifying the usage as accurate and useful and grammatically correct doesn't take away from the point that someone can conceivably, justly, take offense to the language. It's valid for someone to feel the one-sidedness and inequality inherent to the statement. Can you see that removing reference to "a persons ability to access sexual gratification" is detrimental to the expressiveness of the language? If I'm reading this correctly, then I disagree. I think there may be a better way to say what the author was trying to say that is sensitive to the objectification women face.
  - Normal_gaussian 10y ago
    I understand how people take offense at this. However I am saying that their offense is misplaced and the call for action validates the censorship of womens sexual desires. I think you understand this, we just sit wanting different things. To my mind you are calling for the censorship of mens sexual desires to match. In regards to finding a better way for the author to have said it, I imagine simply replacing 'women' with sex would be both more explicit and absent of trigger words.
    - kajecounterhack 10y ago
      the call for action validates the censorship of womens sexual desires How does asking people to be more sensitive validate the censorship of women's sexual desires? I think that's overthinking it. Women are an underprivileged group right now, and nobody's "calling for censorship." I'm just asking for kindness. Is there anything wrong in hoping that people can be more kind? There are many offensive things we avoid saying in general. It's not new, and it's not different to ask that people respect one another.

Pitarou 10y ago

Do you consider fame be a possession, even though it exists entirely in the mind of others?

Normal_gaussian 10y ago

I argue that it is correct to do so. Firstly I show how being grammatically in possession of something is not derogatory: > I have friends I then argue that this usage is in fact desirable > To describe somebody as 'having' women is often accurate and useful Which is followed by stating that I also consider the language to be one sided > Now what does confuse and upset me is the way in which we rarely describe women as being able to have lots of men So when you ask whether I can see that someone might find this language offensive I can only say "evidently". And when you state that we don't see women being described as having men I refer you to my earlier dismay. And when you state that the syntax of the language makes it look like women are possessions I wholeheartedly agree. Can you see that removing reference to "a persons ability to access sexual gratification" is detrimental to the expressiveness of the language?

kajecounterhack 10y ago
Firstly I show how being grammatically in possession of something is not derogatory: "Grammatically not being derogatory" is not the same as understanding how something is actually being received. Language is only as useful as it communicates messages, and I think you can believe what you do and still see how someone could find this offensive, given the landscape which you recognize is one-sided. That is just what I meant. Justifying the usage as accurate and useful and grammatically correct doesn't take away from the point that someone can conceivably, justly, take offense to the language. It's valid for someone to feel the one-sidedness and inequality inherent to the statement. Can you see that removing reference to "a persons ability to access sexual gratification" is detrimental to the expressiveness of the language? If I'm reading this correctly, then I disagree. I think there may be a better way to say what the author was trying to say that is sensitive to the objectification women face.
- Normal_gaussian 10y ago
  I understand how people take offense at this. However I am saying that their offense is misplaced and the call for action validates the censorship of womens sexual desires. I think you understand this, we just sit wanting different things. To my mind you are calling for the censorship of mens sexual desires to match. In regards to finding a better way for the author to have said it, I imagine simply replacing 'women' with sex would be both more explicit and absent of trigger words.
  - kajecounterhack 10y ago
    the call for action validates the censorship of womens sexual desires How does asking people to be more sensitive validate the censorship of women's sexual desires? I think that's overthinking it. Women are an underprivileged group right now, and nobody's "calling for censorship." I'm just asking for kindness. Is there anything wrong in hoping that people can be more kind? There are many offensive things we avoid saying in general. It's not new, and it's not different to ask that people respect one another.