Okay, DUers, here's a quiz: What is the equivalent word for "emasculate" that would be used to

[scarletwoman]

describe something a man does to a woman?

What is the equivalent term for "ball-buster" that would be used to describe a male behavior toward a woman?

What is the equivalent phrase for "castrating bitch" that would be used to describe a male behavior toward a woman?

What is the equivalent term for "man-eater" that would be used for describing a male behavior toward a woman?

Can't think of any? That's because such terms don't exist. The reason such terms don't exist is due to the historical power equation between men and women. This power equation dicates that the male is dominant and the female is subordinate.

These terms -- emasculate, ball-busting, castrating, man-eater -- are terms that describe behaviors which run counter to the accepted "natural order" of male/female dominant/subordinate relationships. They all carry a distinctly negative charge because they describe MALE disempowerment -- a particularly grievous reversal of the norm when carried out by a female.

There is no equivalent language to describe female disempowerment, because there is no cultural assumption of female empowerment in the first place. Female disempowerment IS the historic cultural norm. When it comes to language, there is absolutely NO equivalent negative terminology applied to males for disempowering females.

Let me repeat that: When it comes to language, there is absolutely NO equivalent negative terminology applied to males for disempowering females.

Think about that the next time you read a thread full of DUers touting the "humor" of the "Hillary Nutcracker".

sw

[Enrique]

1. tie her tubes

I've never heard it, but I say we start using it.

[scarletwoman]

2. What a totally moronic response. Way to miss the damn point. (nt)

[Enrique]

3. sorry

:-(

[scarletwoman]

14. I apologize for snapping at you. It's just that I found your "suggestion" really offensive.

And that's aside from the fact that you obviously didn't get the point at ALL.

I'm not looking for some new made-up term, I'm pointing out that such terms DO NOT currently exist.

I want people to THINK about the power dynamics that underly the language that we use.

sw

[TexasProgresive]

39. We have few insults that don't target women in the end

Bitch, is direct but then Bastard, Son of a Bitch, Mother F**ker - well you get the picture. That's one reason I don't use them. It would be more appropriate to call someone an ignorant, swill drinking pig.

[treestar]

75. You're right, there cannot be such a term

But tube-tying does come as close as is possible, since childbearing is the only thing women can do that men can't do and that if looked upon as positive, taking it away would somehow be a negative. But IA with you it would not resonate in the same way, since it is not really looked upon as something that makes women more powerful than men, and is usually the excuse why they need protection from men and should therefore be subordinate.

[lynnertic]

151. oooh! Ooh! "Pro-Lifer!"

Although that doesn't necessarily apply to men and it's not necessarily a pejorative. It does however describe a man who wants to disempower a woman.

[fiveleafclover]

5. That wasn't very nice.

Let's not fight each other. Save it for the enemy.

[scarletwoman]

17. Yes, you're right. That wasn't very nice. I apologized. (nt)

[rAVES]

4. Womanizer.. sex fiend.. um.. total bastard...

[scarletwoman]

7. "Womanizer" does not imply the disempowerment of a woman. It does not imply a loss of status or

loss of potency for a woman.

Sex fiend could apply to either gender. And, again, it contains no implication of specifically disempowering a woman.

As for "total bastard", it has no specific connotation to male/female relationships at all. A man can be a total bastard in any number of situations that have nothing to do with women.

The point is NOT to try to come up with equivalent terms; the point is, THERE AREN'T ANY.

sw

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

169. Well there is the term

Male Chauvinist Pig. Ive know it has other meaning but I have never seen Chauvinist Pig applied to anything but a man who tries to dis-empower women and keep them under his thumb..

[gollygee]

58. Bastard is actually a put-down of a man's mother

that's a weird but common way to say something bad about a man - say something negative about his mother. So his mother had him "out of wedlock", or maybe his mother was a "slut" or a "whore". Son of a bitch is another one. It's still a negative statement against a woman. The negative statement against the m an is due to a woman's sin.

[Syrinx]

6. "ball-buster", "castrating bitch", "man eater" aren't exactly terms I hear everyday

If you do, maybe you are hanging out with the wrong crowd.

[scarletwoman]

9. Well then, read the "Hillary Nutcracker" OP -- ball-bustin' is right there in the 1st sentence.

The Hillary Nutcracker ! Sales are soaring!

All across America, sales of the ball bustin' presidential candidate "action figure" are brisk! (my bold)

sw

[Syrinx]

11. well, I'm generally wary of DU posters that disable their profile n/t

[scarletwoman]

18. The thing is, this isn't the first time that someone has posted a thread about that item here.

And no matter how many times some of us women DUers have pointed out that it's offensive and sexist, those threads persist.

[Syrinx]

20. I log on here just about everyday

And I haven't really noticed a lot of those types of threads. Maybe that's because I'm insensitive. I don't mean to be, and I don't think I am. But, who knows, maybe I am.

When you come across a thread that you think is sexist, alert on it.

I bet that the vast majority of posts that you would alert on would have been made by "disruptors." In other words, Republican assholes that are just wasting their time trying to get us all fighting one another.

I'm convinced that this kind of stuff is actually part of the RNC's official strategy, though they surely wouldn't admit it.

It's partially caused by the inappropriate ads that run on DU. It might be worth the effort to try to get DU to change their methods of raising funds. Personally, I don't pay much attention to the ads on here, but some people get all hyped up about them. And that gives ammunition to freeper type losers that want to spread their hate. So they disguise themselves as Democrats and try their best to foment dissension amongst us.

Real progressives and liberals would probably never post that stuff in the first place. And whomever does post it, probably doesn't belong here anyway.

Alert when you find a freeper troll.

Just remember, real men, liberals and progressives, love women and believe in equal rights.

Just quit giving us grief when we comment that some woman is "hot." That doesn't mean that we view her as an "object."

[scarletwoman]

22. Please know that I HAVE alerted on both the thread that's in GD now, and the one that was posted

a few weeks ago. It did no good, both threads stayed up.

What's particularly annoying about it, to me, is that when the "Hillary Nutcracker" first showed up in the ad rotation on the main page, the admins pulled it almost immediately because they considered it sexist and offensive.

But now it's been at least twice that DUers have posted threads about the damn thing -- complete with the picture and the link to buy it -- and the mods just leave them be.

That's why I started this thread, out of sheer frustration.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful reply.

sw

[Syrinx]

27. thanks to you as well

My best to you! :hi:

[LostinVA]

97. I have, too

It's beyond frustrating.

[scarletwoman]

103. Yes, it is "beyond frustrating" -- that's why I started this thread, since they refuse to lock

that sexist bullshit.

sw

[treestar]

76. Have you ever wondered why that is so bothersome to women?

Does it bother you if women go on about another man being attractive?

I'm thinking it doesn't, because it may not make you feel less attractive merely because another man is being declared so.

But women are so much more judged on their attractiveness that is has an effect - when you hear a man saying another woman is attractive, it gives you more of a reason to immediately consider your own and feel that it is lacking (which even the most beautiful women will feel) - it causes you to "compete" with that woman immediately in your mind on that subject. So it's unpleasant. Not that it should be that way, but it's how women are conditioned as they grow up.

So I guess a man in female company would be more considerate to limit comments on attractiveness to those present. Very old fashioned, probably, but it will gain you more favor from women, I guess.

[Syrinx]

160. let's see...

If my girlfriend went on and on about how some guy was so hot and sexy, and just wouldn't shut up about it, that would probably bother me.

If say, we were watching tv, and Brad Pitt came on, and she offhandedly said "He's hot," that wouldn't bother me a bit. Hell, even though I have absolutely no desire to have sex with Brad (if he even offered me the opportunity!), I've got two eyes, and can see for myself that he is quite attractive -- infinitely more attractive than I'll ever be.

I guess my mini-complaint was really broader than the way I worded it. I've seen some passionate posts in the past I thought had wildly misplaced senses of outrage. So much so that I wondered if those posts were from right-wingers trying to mock and disrupt. Like the one that deconstructed Jon Stewart's favorite insult, "douchebag." While I do agree that this particular epithet, if it can be called that, is rude, crude, and juvenile, I convulsed in laughter as the DU member made the case that to call anyone, male or female, a "douchebag" was inherently sexist because the term primarily refers to an implement sometimes used to clean an intimate part of the female body.

I'm just saying that we strive for mutual respect. I'll try not to say anything offensive to women (and I've never called anyone a "douchebag"), but if I say something innocently, please don't invent some esoteric, bizarre basis on which to accuse me falsely of being a sexist or misogynist, because nothing could be further from the truth.

We have much bigger fish to fry in this struggle to keep this a free and open society, for both men AND women. Sorry, if any PETA people hate that last sentence. :D

[seriousstan]

8. Cuckold

[scarletwoman]

10. *sigh* Did you actually read the post? Explain how "cuckold" describes the disempowerment of a

WOMAN.

Hint: it doesn't. It describes a disempowered MAN.

sw

[lynnertic]

34. a cuckold is a man who raises another man's child - usu in denial or ignorance

because his wife played around.

[TahitiNut]

91. No ... it refers to a man married to a woman who "sleeps around."

While the confused origins of the word stem from the misunderstanding of cuckoo egg-laying, it doesn't at all refer to child-rearing these days.

The implicit presumption that the husband is either (1) responsible for his wife's behavior or (2) incapable of 'satisfying' an unfaithful wife is demeaning to both, but mostly of the husband. There is no equivalent perjorative for a woman married to an unfaithful husband.

[scarletwoman]

94. Thank you for making an excellent point!

There is no equivalent perjorative for a woman married to an unfaithful husband.

Funny how tricky it is for people to see how language reflects our cultural presumptions.

:loveya:
sw

[Sanctified]

12. All of those terms are used to describe women who dominate men.

Men who dominate women are usually called.

Pigs
Chauvinists
Abusive
Pimps
&
Bitch Slappers

[scarletwoman]

19. But they are very specific in the implication that the male is being threatened with castration.

That's why there is no actual equivalent.

[DS1]

13. I don't have immediate answers

but is it not degrading to men to suggest that once their nuts have been cracked, they are no longer men?

I don't like the Hillary nutcracker thing, I think it's stupid. I see it more derogatory towards men than women.


To each their own. I won't be buying it.

[LaurenG]

23. Sometimes you just rock

"I see it more derogatory towards men than women"

Though I do see the point the OP is trying to make.

[Katherine Brengle]

176. Of course, it suggests that they are woman-like and therefore inferior.

You see it as you choose, but it's pretty sad if you actually believe that.

[Kurovski]

15. Can't think of an equivalent.

"Rapist", "abuser" denote actual crimes and violence.

"Cad", "skirt-chaser" and "two-timer" carry a cache of bad boy "charm".

Like I say in the other thread, I think it's partly generational. Breaking down the power equation, taking on the "ball-buster" slur as a positive. Claiming aggression as a role, or aggressive behaviour as not for men only. A pride expressed--by women--is what I've seen in some of those 'nutcracker' posts now and in the past.

But in the past it repressed and hurt many women for generations

It is personally hurtful to some who heard it for literally decades. But to younger others who never experienced that, and who see--and have a way--to define their own roles or behaviour based on their own personality, and their own choices rather than enforced gender roles, it looks like a compliment. (apparently, and by the admission of some posters.)

[scarletwoman]

16. I understand your point, but the problem for me is that describing female agression in those terms,

even if you think female aggressiveness is a GOOD thing, still carries the implication that when a female is powerful, males are DISEMPOWERED -- i.e. rendered impotent through figurative castration.

To me that's a very negative power dynamic. It still maintains the dominant/subordinate dualistic frame, just with the roles reversed.

As long as female power/agressiveness is described in that sort of language, the implied threat to manhood remains intact. Which means that, for the less enlightened, the space for resentment and fear of women's power is still being held open.

Do you see what I mean?

As a woman, I don't want my power to come at the expense of male potency. You know me, I LOVE men. I love POTENT men. I also love my own power -- I want access to BOTH with neither party diminished or threatened in any way.

sw

[Kurovski]

24. I do understand.

But I think for some women that never enters the equation. I might be missing something, but I think they just know that they enjoy being aggressive, if that's what they happen to be, and if they bump up against a "nutcracker", they basically say "yeah, what of it? I think it's great." So it would appear they are not functioning out of that frame, but commenting on it as if to say "get with the program, yeah, I'll crack your nut if you mess with me."

It's just a fact for them, and the attempt to put it in a frame of male/female, even if it's meant to insult, has no power over them.

Again, that's what I'm gleaning from some women's posts on the repeated threads we're discussing.


In gay relationships, the structure often changes, and I think heterosexual relationships are freer now to have that ebb and flow, or maintain at a level most comfortable for the individuals involved.

Ascribing gender to aggressive/passive might be the mistake to begin with. One thing I do know, tastes in such things do not fall into line by sex at birth. They are all based on personality, or temperament, or whatever, but it's not sex.

In reality, the private relationships between men and women have always had some level of interchange of power. One member stronger than the other at some point. For different reasons, emotional loss, illness, age. And let's not forget the big awakening to that fact in WWII.

I hope at least some of this is making sense, i'm really tired. :-)I was gonna go to bed at 10:00 and now it's 3:21. You're keeping me up all night...but I'm sure you've heard that one before!

Good night, I'll check in Sunday afternoon. :hug:

[scarletwoman]

26. I'm relentless.

:evilgrin:

Thank you again for your considered and thoughtful -- and throught-provoking -- responses here. There's more I'd like to say about language, but I'll leave it for later. You think YOU'RE up late -- I'm two time zones later than you! Ack!

Sleep well, dear.
:hug:

[GOTV]

196. Those terms wouldn't have bad boy charm is women didn't respond to charming bad boys....

... right? If the skirt-chaser never caught a skirt and spent each Saturday night alone, or with the guys, we would view him as foolish and not enviable.

[Bongo Prophet]

21. Perhaps there are terms in other languages. I don't know, BUT...

since languages evolve alongside culture we can come up with neologisms that reflect the new power dynamics as WE evolve.

I THINK what you are gertting at is not that there SHOULD be an equivalent in the other direction, but rather to point out the historical landscape.
What we need is to drop that shit as much and as soon as possible and work for a new "partnering" dynamic, and in that process new words, phrases and associations will be made.

Maybe there should be a term for taking a macho asshole down a notch, as a POSITIVE term.
Believe me, as a human with exterior organs, I am demeaned as much as any woman by such crass behavior. We ALL are.

I do like the term "mensch" to differentiate good people of integrity.
In use with kids, one can say "You can be born male or female, but you have to EARN the title of a mensch."

We have centuries of abusive relationships to heal, and it will take time.
I consider you and I on the right side of history/herstory....OUR Story.


The nutcracker shit just reminds me of Tucker Carlson.
It says more about what a person who feels threatened than it does about anything else.

[scarletwoman]

25. Oh thank you, thank you! Yes! You get EXACTLY what I mean!

I THINK what you are getting at is not that there SHOULD be an equivalent in the other direction, but rather to point out the historical landscape.

Yes, that's precisely what I'm trying to do!

What we need is to drop that shit as much and as soon as possible and work for a new "partnering" dynamic, and in that process new words, phrases and associations will be made.

<snip>

We have centuries of abusive relationships to heal, and it will take time.

Very well said! And I love what you said about the term "mensch".

Thank you so much! YOU are definitely a mensch!

sw

[hlthe2b]

46. I agree with you ScarletWoman..

As one who was referred to early on in a very prominent workplace as a "ballbuster" upon completing a very difficult assignment and being referred throughout my career for being "incredibly intelligent and competent, but difficult (while analogous male colleagues were "competent and tough) I understand totally how language can be applied subtly but intentionally to hold back women.

[scarletwoman]

48. Thank you! Those are great examples!

It is extremely difficult to prod people into awareness of the power dynamic that underlies the language we use. It's really invisible to most people.

sw

[Djinn]

142. agree

I'm generally viewed as far more aggressive than men I work with even if they use the exact same organising strategies as I use. I've been perfomance managed for doing the exact same thing a male colleague has been loudly congratulated for. That time I managed to eventually get my boss to admit it was because women, in his view, should be more easy going and accomodating.

[Karenina]

173. There's a term in German

"Frauen feindlich" (hostile towards, enemy to) which is used to describe whomever it applies to.

[Asgaya Dihi]

28. Equivalent?

I'm not sure there are equivalent phrases but then again men have their own baggage as well. The little head thinking for the big one, being lead around by the balls, and so on. We live in a society which has built its own terminology, much based on sex, and while I won't defend it that is the world we live in and in its own way it does hit both sides. It often isn't fair or "PC" to either.

Where sexism is real it's inexcusable but personally I think the Hillary campaign and her supporters in particular have overplayed that aspect and it would do them a lot of good to back off on it. It has lead to too much coverage such as this and rather than advancing womens rights I suspect it might have done some harm. I was raised by a single parent mother and have a strong wife that I couldn't be prouder of but have again and again had some lack-witted idiot call me anything from hater to sexist for expressing concerns that had nothing to do with her sex or the old Bill Clinton baggage. To many people it long ago stopped being a legitimate concern and started looking more like a tool of the campaign, and one she was willing to play both sides of.

The issue has been overplayed in this campaign, at least in my opinion.

[scarletwoman]

33. It's a trick question -- there AREN'T any equivalent terms.

I wasn't thinking in terms of campaign politics at all, btw. And just to be clear, I am NOT a Hillary Clinton supporter.

[Asgaya Dihi]

40. Cool

You had mentioned her in the closing line of the OP and it's been an issue in the campaign so I guess those are the terms I was thinking in. In general terms I don't disagree with you in the slightest, even where no harm is intended we can't characterize people in those ways without it having some effect, conscious or not. Same with racist terminology. Even if we don't mean it or don't realize it words do have meaning.

In the context of this campaign though I worry that throwing the accusations around where they aren't applicable and directed toward people where the accusation is bizarre at best just hurts the cause in the long run, makes it easier to disregard the accusation as baseless without even looking. I wish those who are using it as a campaign tool would think about that some. There's a cost to cheapening the issue which could last well past the campaign season.

[Bongo Prophet]

50. That NYT article is wrong on sooo many levels, but this is not just about that

The candidate supporters are in battle mode right now, and those heightened tensions do reveal much.
In my opinion, you are correct that many are using the current state of societal prejudices as leverage, they HOPE to their advantage.
And that they may have oveplayed it, seeing slights where none are intended.
I have seen the same phenomenon here that you have, posters being beaten with an accusation that was clearly NOT a sexist attack, but a policy difference.
We will have to leave that for now, though, as I see no rational way of dealing with it in the short term.

BUT in keeping with the spirit of the OP, the META level is of language and culture, and we as Homo Sapiens need to realize that we are in transition to "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" - not just "primates who are aware" but primates who acknowledge that our awareness brings the responsibility and opportunity to take the reins of our own evolution, both physically AND culturally.
Now, physical evolution happens over generations, while PERSONAL and CULTURAL evolution can happen much faster. And we had BETTER get a handle on that fact, because technology is evolving faster than our ability to deal with the ethical implications of that technological evolution.

If we fail to do this, we can expect a series of disasters and perhaops a major downsizing of numbers of humans and other species. Indeed, much of that is happening now.

Of course, cultural evolution comes as an aggregate of personal growth experiences, shared and built upon by communication- and thereby thoroughly intertwined with the communications technologies as we are using here on this board. The ideas that we males are "lead by our testosterone" or that our very worth is measured by such archaic standards needs to be confronted ACTIVELY and CONSCIOUSLY. Sometimes we need to reject these things forcefully and put a bit of "peer pressure" to not be such "dicks"-- the term "Politically Correct" is often used as a reaction against this. But as thinking and caring people, it is our responsibility to NOT just accept "human nature" as something that changes so slowly (if at all) that we are powerless to change it. That is certainly NOT true.

Looking beyond sexual inequality, we have to deal with large scale systemic uses of energy and social order, how we can enhance personal freedom AND the social contract in some balanced transitional way.
I see in your siglinks reference to the drug war - this is an excellent example of imbalance. A war on people changing their own conscoiusness. What madness! What waste! It is one of the very FIRST things we need to change. Indeed, the ability to change consciousness and get "outside" the cultural brainwash that enthralls so many is key to escaping the traps therein.

We will either learn to steer our way through the mess we have created or we will pay heavy consequences - more than likely we will pay heavy prices before we really get to addressing the majority of what we need to do.
Suffering is the greatest instigator of change, necessity the mother of invention and all that.
Unfortunately, when we are in great turmoil is not the best time to think clearly about these things. That time is always BEFORE the heavy shit comes down. And that is exactly why we need to be setting up the process and planting the seeds of change our whole lives. It is the duty of everyone of us who is AWAKEned to the fact that WE are the masters of our fate, with our hands on the rudder.

Thank you for the thoughtful post. It triggered some nascent thoughts in me. :hi:
Same to you catwoman - you kept me up waaaaay tooo late on this great OP!
RESPECT.


Obviously, I am not a member of Homo Succinctus. Apologies for the run on sentences above. :)

[Asgaya Dihi]

54. True

The Times in general I'm not that impressed with these days, I just threw a couple of search terms at Google for an example of the type of debate the issue has generated. In general I don't think it's been a helpful debate for the cause, from that source or from many others.

You're right on the mark about the need to evolve as a culture and we've been going in the wrong direction here for decades. The drug war is a good example with the Constitutional exceptions for searches and any number of other things, helped get us used to the idea of exceptions in general and today wouldn't have been possible without that. Same with the militarization of our police and a number of other aspects of it including Blackwater. Blackwater wouldn't have been possible without the prep work of private prisons and the domestic security industry to get us used to the idea. Step by step we not only allowed it to happen, many of us shouted "tough on crime" as a campaign slogan and helped it along.

Our policies in Central America have had similar results and are in many ways related, and so on. This is a pretty damned long road we've been on and we have to go back decades to see where we went wrong and try to fix it. Looking at the last 8 years just isn't going to do it. We need to change who we are as a people and at a basic level, 50 years militarized like we were for the cold war changed us on a fundamental level to see force not only as an option, but too often as the first option.

No worry on the long note or writing style, when I get going I can write a book instead of a post ;)

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

29. K & R. Sadly, the subordination of women is still very deeply...

...ingrained in our culture. It permeates the psyche of both men and women from a very early age. While there may not be any quick fix remedies, calling attention to it and getting it out on the table for discussion can only help.

[timtom]

30. I never thought of that before

you're quite right. As soon as I read the title of your post, I tried to think of an example. As I couldn't, I realized the same thing you explained when I read your post.

Power.

[scarletwoman]

32. Thank you! It's such a joy when someone understands what I'm trying to say!

Not surprising that you are a fellow Kucinich supporter. :D

[no_hypocrisy]

31. There really is no pithy expression to describe how a woman is invalidated as a person,

only concepts:

1. You're an embarassment to your parents.
2. You like boys too much, or conversely, you don't need a boyfriend.
3. You talk too much.
4. You know the answers in class too much.
5. You're too good at sports.
6. You went to an all women's college.
7. You didn't marry right out of college.
8. You didn't marry a rich enough guy.
9. You didn't marry.
10. You're a lesbian bulldyke.
11. You're a lipstick lesbian.
12. You're frigid.
13. You're a nymphomanic, alley cat, etc.
14. You're a poor wife and mother.
15. You're a poor housekeeper.
16. You're too helpless.
17. You're too independent.
18. You're miserable.
19. You're too stupid to be miserable.
20. You're not beautiful.
21. You care too much about your appearance.
22. You're stingy with your money.
23. You have no idea how money is budgeted and spent.

Pick and choose and you have the status of women being robbed of their right to exist as they are. It's too complicated to roll into one word.

[Djinn]

144. You don't want kids

Wish I had a dollar for the number of times my expressed lack of desire to breed was met with a completely different reaction than when men do so.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. defeminze.

This is actually not a complete equivalent. If you look up the history of emasculate it literally means to remove the penis and testicles. Historiclly this was done to captured warriors to humiliate them. As there is no biological equivalent of the rather simple procedure of castration, there is no exact equivalent. Defeminize does fit the current usage of emasculate, and is exactly what is done as a political tactic by the political opponents of women politicians.

[scarletwoman]

38. How does a man "defeminize" a woman?

I'm not sure if you got the point of my post. I'm not asking people to come up a word, I'm asking them to think about the power dynamic behind the words I used in my examples.

As I posted to someone above, it's a trick question.

sw

[Warren Stupidity]

43. It is done all the time.

Woman politicians are portrayed as ugly, unattractive, bitches, cacklers: these are attacks on their identity as women. Clinton was attacked for having breasts at one point, her dress had the wrong cut, breasts were obviously present, and somehow that was wrong. What was that about?

I agree that obviously there are huge differences in society, but you asked in your headline a direct question and the answer is that there is an equivalent word and, more to the point, there is a very similar sort of character attack made against women.

[scarletwoman]

45. Those are all examples of demeaning, not defeminizing.

Being characterized as being unattractive or a bitch are totally within the context of the general disparagement of the feminine that forms the cultural roots of our language. It is the norm to demean women, because women are considered to have less worth than men.

Again, the questions I posed were trick questions, not meant to be answered. The point of my post was to call attention to the underlying power dynamic manifested in the usage of those terms.

[Warren Stupidity]

62. Well I'll just disagree.

The words exist and have equivalent meaning. In fact you can google emasculate and defeminize and find them used in the same sentence meaning exactly what you assert that they cannot mean. The questions you posed may have been trick questions, whatever that means to you, but your literal headline question was readily answered and was a false assertion.

A google indicates that you are not alone in asserting that there is no equivalent to emasculate for women: this factoid appears to be making the round of the internets. As frequently happens, while the idea is intruiging, it is also false, trick or not, and may be evolving into urban legend status, like the purported plethora of eskimo words for snow.

[Bongo Prophet]

134. Maybe scarletwoman should give you a prize for winning the "quiz"

I think this thread shows different modal types interpreting the "quiz" in different ways.

You and others take on the literal task of finding that "equivalent term" and the OP bats you down according to her interpretation of your answers.
Since she did indeed phrase it as a challenge and made an assertion that there is NO equivalent, this is a very legitimate response.
One could say it is the most logical response.

A part of me reacted in this way, as a lover of words more than a lover of quiz/trivia challenges.
But my overall sense as an associative/synthesist modal type of intelligence overrode this, and I found it more interesting to address the underlying historical trends and how we may evolve through these into more equitable thought patterns in the future.

This is just a difference in approach, and both are valid in my opinion.

Consider though, which creates the more fruitful and interesting discussion:
1." I have the answer, it is this. Disagree if you will, but I have answered. You are wrong. Good day." And dusting their hands off, task complete, they off to other tasks.

OR

2. "I am unsure of whether there are EXACT equivalents, so rather than play that game, it raises some interesting points. Let us discuss them together!" And proceed to engage in some of the implications raised by the thoughts embedded in the quiz itself.

One is clearly more CORRECT and LOGICAL, while the second may seem WEAK or even EVASIVE. In keeping with the thread's theme, it could be characterized as an effeminate apprroach. ;)
But it does lead to a more interesting conversation.

It is my opinion that you hit on the closest answer to the quiz, and if it were MY post, would grant you the cookie you deserve. But if it were my post, I would not have made assertions or a quiz, but rather an invitation to discuss certain historical and cultural issues like language and relationships. Or at least hedged it with qualifiers such as "at least not in common use"

AND THAT POST WOULD HAVE SUNK LIKE A STONE! :)
Funny how THAT works.

[scarletwoman]

136. I just have to say, I LOVE your mind! I hope WarrenS sees your post. (nt)

on edit: I hadn't planned on giving out cookies. But I if I had, I would give out cookies to every single person who posted on this thread, whether I agreed with them or not.

:)
sw

[Bongo Prophet]

147. Well, yummm! And thank you for being gracious.

I was about to state that I hope Warren Stupidity (what a great handle) took it as I meant it, which was positive. But then saw his post and responded.

So.

Very glad that my brushing aside the quiz part of your post - in order to blather on about what I wanted instead - was taken so well.
It was kinda selfish in a way, but it triggered thoughts and I just thought to share them would be better than mumbling them to myself. ;)
the GOOD side of DU, when we can synergize, acts as an antidote to all the primary season snarkathon.

Hopefully also, it sparked some ideas in your head as to how to move people to think about the bigger issues of language<>cultural meme interaction.
It did for me.

Cheers

[scarletwoman]

150. Not "selfish" at all! I'm very glad you didn't just mumble to yourself.

I'm honestly grateful that you brushed aside the quiz part of my post -- it was just my "hook" (so to speak), after all.

Understand, I wrote my OP in the heat of outrage and frustration over another thread -- it was my way of doing something besides shrieking and banging my head against the keyboard.

I very rarely start a thread -- maybe once every two or three months at most. Usually I'm content to simply exchange information and arguments within the bodies of other people's threads. That's because I'm generally reluctant to hold forth as though I have some great truth to deliver from on high.

In other words, I prefer to learn and observe, not lecture (although I must confess a certain fondness for good snark). As far as I'm concerned, this thread has been a win-win; not only has it been an opportunity to express my own thoughts, the responses have definitely broadened my own understanding and given me much food for further thought on the topic I sought to address.

If this has been a satisfying experience for you as well, so much the better. I'm very grateful that you chose to contribute here, and I consider your contributions to be quite valuable.

My sincere thanks,
sw

(edited to remove a superfluous preposition)

[Bongo Prophet]

153. As some wise person once said...

The best way to fight evil is to make energetic progress in the good. ;)

This has prompted me to consider posting an original thread to promote some understanding, but I will wait for next weekend.
Not so dense as to do it at 1am on a Sunday night...

See you around!
:pals:

[scarletwoman]

154. I will very much look forward to your thread.

And please pm me to let me know when you've posted it, in case I don't see it. As I said earlier, I love your mind.

:pals:
sw

[Bongo Prophet]

155. I will do that, SW

Okay, i am blushing now. :blush:

I put you on my tiny little buddy list.
(The list is tiny, not my buddies -dang english language! ;))

[Warren Stupidity]

138. Like Spock I am confounded by irrationality.

Look I got the OP's point. But I indeed have a problem with soaring assertions oddly grounded in logical blunders. So, when confronted with the logical blunder, I will invariably blurt out the obvious, even if I agree with the general argument.

And finally, before accepting my cookie, none of us peasants are empowered. We are all emasculated and defeminized on a daily basis. Are the women peasants less empowered than the male peasants? Yes of course. There is a whole pecking order at the bottom, our rulers wouldn't have it any other way. It keeps us fighting each other.

[Bongo Prophet]

143. That's cool. It is quite valid for you do do so, and hope I was clear on that.

Scarletwoman is giving us all cookies, which is nice. I like cookies.

And excellent secondary point about the pecking order and keeping us peasants arguing amongst ourselves.
This is why I often try to skip past the argumentary phase, and delve into the meta phase.
Rather, that is the STRATEGIC reason I do so in addition to the fact that I ENJOY associative more than logical/practical thinking. It is somewhat of a default for me, as you have said the logical is the default for you.

It is important for me to stress how much I WELCOME thinking styles such as yours, and how valuable you are - you cut to the chase quickly. And that is to be highly honored, as well as much needed on "our side" of this political/social journey. Same for the healing nurturers, intuitives and so on.
While the culture cops want us to argue, they don't really want us to analyze the structure , critique it and then strategize on undermining or bypassing it.

Your comments on unqualified assertions made by feminist critiques should also be taken into consideration. If framed in such a way, all that need be done is find ONE single counter example and the "argument" is over. If the real goal is to enter into discussion and analysis, then it should not be presented in such harsh terms, I think. But then, that is why I admitted that my way would sink a thread before it even engaged people, so less would see it, and therefore less would be moved to consider the implications. Sometimes controversy, while not spurring thought in and of itself, allows for the subject to linger in the air. Kicking it, in DU speak.

I also did a search for historical examples to see what the historical arc of the debate was like, and therefore learned a bit. Without your comments, I might not have done so. In the same way, if I had looked at this as a quiz only, I would have just backed out of the thread altogether, without comment. I hope it is a win/win.

Here are a couple of things I found in my goooglin':

from The Real Facts of Life: Feminism and the Politics of Sexuality C 1850-1940 By Margaret Jackson
Writing about Dr. Mary (Marie) Stopes, a feminist auther in early 20th century:
"She even coined a new verb, to defeminate', the equivalent of 'to emasculate', to describe a woman who is deprived of sexual satisfaction from coitus. A woman, too, she wrote, "is defeminated by protracted abstinence just as a man is emasculated by protracted abstinence'.

Marie Stopes had some rahter controversial ideas, some good, such as family planning, some bad, among them being eugenics.

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


Then there is this:

William Safire in The San Francisco Chronicle, This World, Nov. 16,1986, p.19, discusses the possible opposites for emasculate. He concludes that defeminate is best, after also considering effeminate, spay, hysterectate, demulierize, gyneclate, degynify, and exogynate.

Setting aside the fact that Safire is an ass, it shows that this has been a mainstream political argument for a while now.
While I was generally aware of the feminist critique, I didn't know it had spread to the yakking class.

so again, thanks for your part in this thread- it has been valuable to me, and I hope to others.

[NashVegas]

200. Look At It This Way

How many times have you ever sat in mixed company, or seen via tv or film, a conversation wherein one woman describes a man of her acquaintance as a "defeminizer" using the caustic tones a man will use to describe a woman who's made a dent in his feelings of masculinity?

The point (for me) is, we aren't taught to value our own femininity.

[Perry Logan]

36. Women get trivialized, ridiculed, and marginalized all the time. Those are the equivalents.

[annabanana]

41. Bingo. It is the water we swim in, and as such... without words.. . .n/t

[scarletwoman]

42. No, those are NOT equivalents. Women are already assumed to have no power.

When they DO exhibit power, they are then accused of taking power AWAY from men -- the rightful holders of power.

Men are assumed to have power, that's why women having power is framed as a reversal of the "natural order" and a danger to men -- the language (ball-busting, etc.) implies figurative castration.

[lynnertic]

37. it's because in our patriarchal society it's not unusual to disempower a woman

and it certainly isn't "selected against" with language like "emasculate"

Let me repeat that: When it comes to language, there is absolutely NO equivalent negative terminology applied to males for disempowering females.

It's not seen as negative.

[scarletwoman]

44. Exactly! Thank you for getting it! (nt)

[OregonBlue]

47. Misogyny=hatred of women, no word for hatred of men. That has always bothered me too.

Thanks for the post. I hope lots of people think about it and begin to wonder why this is and how do we change it. To begin with of course, we should not use those terms ourselves and should, gently at first, begin to correct those that do. The language we use counts.

[scarletwoman]

49. Great example of what I'm trying to get at, thank you!

My OP was the result of my utter disgust over the "Hillary Nutcracker" thread elsewhere in GD.

Yes: "The language we use counts."

sw

[Pab Sungenis]

57. Misandrony.

There is a word for just about everything in the English language.

[Warren Stupidity]

63. Funny how that works.

[fishnfla]

67. what's so funny about it?

i have absolutely no sense of humour

is there a term for that?

[Warren Stupidity]

71. humorless.

What is funny, generally, are posts that claim 'there is no such X' when actually there obviously is. What adds to the merriment is that quite a few people, confronted with the naked assertion 'there is no such X', will accept that as a fact rather than ask the uncomfortable 'there isn't?, what about this X over here?' And then when somebody actually notices that the assertion is both naked and false, that there is indeed an X, the OP quickly changes the subject, or announces that somehow that isn't relevant. It is all part of the ongoing perpetual joke known as 'the internets'.

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. 'Misandry', to be precise (nt)

[Karenina]

70. My Merriam-Webster's Collegiate 10th edition

goes from misalliance to misanthrope with nothing in between...

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. Not very good - they have it online

and it dates back to 1909: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/misandry

[Karenina]

77. Says something about common usage, eh?

;-) :hi:

[lostnfound]

51. First we would need a norm of empowered women

Only once it became a norm would there be a term describing the removal of it.

It's so far from reality in most societies that it's inconceivable.

What societies have traditionally powerful women? Matriarchies? Not exactly equivalent and extremely rare in any case.

[scarletwoman]

140. Thank you -- sorry, I missed your post earlier. You've hit the nail on the head.

First we would need a norm of empowered women... Only once it became a norm would there be a term describing the removal of it.

Spot on and well said!

Thank you again,
sw

[Annces]

52. The same thought crossed my mind

Hillary nutcracker is supposed to be funny when it is not. We don't accept racism or homophobism on this board, but sexism is given a pass.

Very well written and thought out post.

[scarletwoman]

82. Thank you. Yeah, I really get tired of sexism being given a pass. (nt)

[Chovexani]

149. I think you're giving this board too much credit

Racism and homophobia are given daily passes on this site as well. :(

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

53. Patronize?

Yeah, not exactly a fit.

But have you ever heard of someone being matronized?

:hi:

[dbt]

55. DLC. eom

[Pab Sungenis]

56. Shakespeare had one.

"You spirits That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here, And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full Of direst cruelty” (MacBeth, Act I Scene V 38–41)

"Defemininze" has also been in common use.

And lest we forget the classic terminology of males disempowering females: "barefoot and pregnant," "a woman's place is in the kitchen," "women must submit to their husbands," etc.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. Castration and rape: war at it's most basic.

The defeated men were slaughtered and/or castrated and the women were slaughtered and/or raped. Our civilization's foundation myth includes this as 'the rape of the sabine women'. We are the charming civilized murderous raping apes, no wonder we cannot figure out how to live on our little planet without polluting ourselves into extinction.

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. 'Objectify'?

It's a fairly commonly used term.

[Tesha]

60. The reason there are no equivalent terms is that there is no equivalent physical process.

The reason there are no equivalent terms is that
there is no equivalent physical process; you can't
readily slice off a woman's sex whereas it's
trivially easy to emasculate a male.

You might consider Agatha of Sicily for what may
be the closest historical equivalent:

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

Tesha

[scarletwoman]

104. The point I'm trying to make is about the POWER equation. Terms such as "emasculate"

are concerned with the symbolic deprivation of the male's culturally presumed right to dominance. They are not describing an actual literal and physical event.

It's not about genitilia, it's about how language reflects and reinforces the dynamics of power and dominance.

[Tesha]

127. *OF COURSE* they're about literal emasculation; read your history.

And until you do, stop trying to convince of something
you clearly know very little about.

Tesha

[scarletwoman]

135. I know a bit about history -- but perhaps I've missed all the occasions where women performed

castrations on men. I know of occasions where MEN castrated other men (cf Peter Abélard) -- or even castrated themselves, as in the case of worshippers of Cybele -- but I'm having a difficult time recollecting stories of WOMEN taking the knife to a man's balls.

I hope you will post some examples.

[Tesha]

166. Clearly men genealize. But...

> I know of occasions where MEN castrated other men (cf Peter Abélard)...

Clearly men genealize. But Abelard isn't the interesting
case here. The world over, conquering armies pretty routinely
castrated at least some subset of the conquered. This assured
two things:

o The conquered would be docile

o The conquerers would be the ones whose line
continued within the conquered. That's also
why rape of the women was (is?) the standard
outcome of a military defeat.

Okay, we don't have examples of women holding the
knife, but we have examples all the world over of
one society wielding it against another, and women,
even if they were back at home or maybe only as far
away as the campaign tents, were (and are) part of
society.

And, more to my original point, I never stated that
women do or don't do it; I merely observed that *THE
REASON THERE ARE NO EQUIVALENT TERMS FOR MEN* is that
there's no equivalent process for unsexing women. But
you have no argument against that point so you attempted
to change the subject to a straw woman.

Tesha

[Djinn]

145. read the thread

and until you do stop pretending this has ANYTHING to do with the literal emasculation

[Tesha]

165. Words are just symbol`s, representing the real. (NT)

[bear425]

61. Mysoginize?

Although, that's not a real word...

Perhaps, we should add it to the lexicon.

[bear425]

81. Misogynize. Still not a word, but spelled better. n/t

[aikoaiko]

64. bitch-slap

[scarletwoman]

105. Who is doing the "slapping"? Who is getting "slapped"? Who is the "bitch"?

That's a term demeaning to WOMEN, not to men. It still reinforces the presumption of male dominance.

[aikoaiko]

137. Yes, it is a demeaning term as most of these types of terms are.

But I offer it as a type of female version of castrated, etc.

The "bitch" gets slapped when she acts in an empowered way.

[scarletwoman]

139. But it doesn't particularly demean the man -- that's my point.

The "bitch" gets slapped when she acts in an empowered way.

Or, she gets accused of being a "ball-buster". The point is, ALL these terms are expressions of approbrium directed at WOMEN who dare to assume power.

There are no equivalent expressions of approbrium directed at MEN for assuming power, because the culturally accepted norm IS for men to have power.

[WinkyDink]

66. Your third-last paragraph answered your (rhetorical) question.

[scarletwoman]

107. Well, yes. Since my intent was to educate. (nt)

[Jackpine Radical]

69. A lot of stuff in this post that I never actually thought about before.

You are absolutely right about the language point. Even if someone comes up with a counterexample, your point is made by how difficult it has been to find that exception.

Rather than attempt a coherent reply, I'm gonna put some free associations into the mix.

There are so many ways in which women are typically stronger and more practical than men--personally, I want strong, competent women around me in any disaster; they'll see through the extraneous distractions and get things taken care of--that the whole thing would be pretty funny if it weren't so tragic.

Women seem to get into trouble when they do things that challenge the lowest and most brutal aspects of masculine power. Traditional men put women on pedestals and then beat the crap out of them if they dare to step down. Only two types of women--virgin princesses and whores.

And of course, all this power/gender stuff comes with terrible costs for both men and women. The costs are obvious for women, but men who choose to play the power game must accept severe limitations on their ability to be human. They are not permitted to express--or even to feel--certain emotions, for example. They cannot have large and meaningful networks of friends. They are not even allowed to give their minds free rein; some ideas, esthetic preoccupations and behaviors are taboo. (Women can, and do, wear men's clothes. Only Rudy Giuliani can wear dresses.)

[Snotcicles]

73. Dominatrix . nt

[piedmont]

84. no. nt

[slackmaster]

74. Ann Coulter is frequently subjected to de-femenizing comments on DU

References to her general build, enlarged thyroid, large hands, etc. Not to mention perversions of her name like Ann the Man.

[Marie26]

78. There isn't one - disempowerment is the natural state. nt

[scarletwoman]

83. Exactly my point. Thank you. (nt)

[Swamp Rat]

79. I'll try:

"femasculate"

"egg-buster"

"spaying dog"

"woman-eater"

Now, all we have to do is change the minds of everyone on Earth to view these terms as negative.

[scarletwoman]

85. "Now, all we have to do is change the minds of everyone on Earth to view these terms as negative."

Ah, Swampy. Thank you for your contribution!

"spaying dog" :spank:

:loveya:
sw

[Skittles]

80. you are absolutely correct

funny watching even DUers desperately trying to come up with silly terms to prove, well, what cannot be proven.

[scarletwoman]

88. Thank you.

Yeah, "misandry" just trips off the tongue, doesn't it -- such a commonly used term. :eyes:

Thanks again,
sw

[piedmont]

86. Rape. nt

[scarletwoman]

90. Rape is the extreme degree of male dominance --

the extreme manifestation of the male/dominant female/subordinate equation.

My point is, that male dominance is culturally presumed and reflected in the language that we use to refer to the power dymanic between males and females.

[Djinn]

146. it's a small point

and I hate to disagree with you SW but rape is about domionance full stop not male dominance. There's an awful lot of unspoken about rape and sexual assault in lesbian relationships.

[scarletwoman]

148. I'm glad you brought that up, because it's something I definitely did not know about.

Obviously, I've been focussed on male dominance in this thread, because that is the root cultural paradigm that I'm attempting to deconstruct.

While I've had many casual friendships with lesbian women over the years, I've never really entered into their world. It makes sense to me, however, that within that world, dominance is going to play itself out just as it does in the straight world.

Thank you for expanding my understanding.

sw

[LostinVA]

167. Links to "awful lot" of rape and sexual assault in lesbian relationships?

I'm just dying to see what they are/say.

[Djinn]

180. Yeah because women are inately peaceful and non violent?

A few years back I helped a friend out of a nasty domestic situation. I knew she was being bullied and hit but it wasn't until later that I found out she was raped more than once (not uncommon in situations of domestic abuse - funny that it's about power)

I went to group counseling with her and was a little surprised to find out it wasn't uncommon in gay relationships. I say a little surprised because when I thought about it for 2 seconds it was patently obvious. Power imbalances occur in all types of relationships. If you think it doesn't you are simply deluding yourself.

If you want links you could try researching something for yourself (although finding one's own information and analysing it yourself seems unfashionable these days) or you could just be lazy and expect to be bottle fed:

http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/gay.shtml
http://www.sexualassaultsarnia.on.ca/LesbianRelationships2006.pdf
http://www.wcasa.org/info/factsheets/lesbigay.htm
http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v3n4/vickers.html
http://www.wwu.edu/chw/preventionandwellness/casas/samesexviolence.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x139l0x4575m1827/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH7-3V8C7YH-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f055d2797d08aa8bc17be29e325e015b
http://www.womensweb.ca/violence/dv/lesbian.php
http://ssdv.acon.org.au/information/uniqueaspects.php
http://www.mkelgbt.org/awareness/avp_dvAbuseInLesbianRelationships.asp
http://www.hotpeachpages.net/ALR/
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0094-3061(199305)22%3A3%3C355%3AVBPAIL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I
http://www.kalimunro.com/article_partnerabuse.html
http://www.nwnetwork.org/articles/12.html
http://incestabuse.about.com/od/glbt/a/lesbian.htm
http://www.ibiblio.org/rcip/lgbtqdv.html
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/html/femlesbi_e.html
http://www.womanabuseprevention.com/html/same-sex_partner_abuse.html
http://www.filmbaby.com/films/2197
http://www.haitiangaysandlesbiansalliance.org/lesbianabuse.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x139l0x4575m1827/
http://www.kwsasc.org/resources/pdfs/Same%20Sex%20Abuse/Abuse%20in%20Same%20Sex%20Relationships.pdf

You don't honestly believe what your petty snark would seem to suggest, that there is no abuse (or even that there is less abuse) is lesbian relationships? Seriously that is just blind not to mention offensive for women who have been abused by women. Your attitude is a very common and reactionary one ie don't believe a victim of domestic abuse.

My friend faced the disbelief of police and the courts but worse than that the disbelief of people she'd considered her community. Many people, particularly other women/lesnians outright refused to believe a woman/lesbian could commit sex crimes.

It's attitudes like yours that make it so hard for women to get justice when they are abused in this way.

[LostinVA]

194. Oh brother

Personal attacks, strawmen, dubious personal anecdotes masquerading as facts against gay relationships, accusing me of stuff I didn't say.... *yawn*

Not a surprise at all.

Interesting that you consider a request backing up your smear on gay relationships as "petty snark." I guess my saying that it's still an unproven smear is more snark.

*yawn redux*

[Djinn]

205. your request

for "information" - puhlease, like "dying" to know wasn't snarky, my original post contained no slurs at all unless you were desperately looking for them and unless I also view hetero relationships with scorn too.

Do I view people who beat their spouses regardless of their gender with scorn. Fucking oath I do. Do I get annoyed when people appear to be denying abuse takes place Fucking oath I do.

You read all those links...yeah sure you did

[NMMNG]

203. How do any of those links show an "awful lot" of abuse?

Most of them claim that abuse in same-sex relationships are roughly similar to those of opposite-sex relationships. When you say that there is an "awful lot" of abuse in same-sex relationships it implies there is more abuse than in opposite-sex relationships.

Maybe that's why you got the reaction you did to your original statement. :shrug:

[Djinn]

204. if you read it in context

I'd say it was pretty obvious what it meant - there IS an awful lot of domestic violence in straight relationships and there is a equal amount in lesbian - ie AN AWFUL LOT and the response it got had to do with that posters preciousness nothing else

[Bonobo]

87. I hate when women say "testosterone poisoning". As if to say that men are naturally toxic.

Or "too much testosterone in the room" or "pissing contest" or "making up for having a small dick" or "runt" or any of the other myriad ways men, too, are degraded. Sorry, but your perspective is just that. YOUR perspective. It does not invalidate others'.

[scarletwoman]

89. Men say those same things to and about each other. It's part of the dominance game.

Those are all terms predicated on the presumption of male power. You can only be threatened with disempowerment if you are presumed to have power to begin with.

[zorahopkins]

92. Here Are Some

"What is the equivalent term for "ball-buster" that would be used to describe a male behavior toward a woman?"

Abuser. Wife beater. Chauvanist pig.

"What is the equivalent phrase for "castrating bitch" that would be used to describe a male behavior toward a woman?"

Rapist. Abuser. Pig.

[scarletwoman]

93. None of those is a REVERSAL of the culturally presumed norm of male dominance.

The point of my OP was not to actually find equivalent terms, the point was to show how the cultural presumptions about the male/female power equation is reflected in the terms I listed.

[zorahopkins]

95. Agreed.

Sorry I misread your original post.

Of course the entire society revolves around the cultural perceptions of male dominance.

Lots of times male dominance is real. Females are just expected to get the coffee and do menial tasks FOR MEN.

Women get paid far less than males -- and women do more work, and are better at it.

I have been the victim of male domination at work and in my personal life.

The real shame is that there are often women who conspire with the men in order to keep male domination in place.

[scarletwoman]

132. "The real shame is that there are often women who conspire with the men in order to keep male...

domination in place."

I think it's because women are taught/trained/expected to measure themselves in terms of male approval, which sets us in competition with each other for that kind of validation and attention. Therefore, the path of least resistance is to side with the prevailing paradigm of male dominance. It's often a completely unconscious choice, imho, due to the lack of conscious questioning of the paradigm.

My OP is merely my humble attempt to make people conscious of the prevailing paradigm so that they can begin to question and challenge it.

sw

[Radical Activist]

100. sexist

misogynist. player.

[scarletwoman]

109. How do those terms challenge the culturally presumed "norm" of male dominance?

I don't think you got the point of my OP, imho.

[Radical Activist]

118. They are terms for men disempowering women

which is what you asked for in your OP.

Challenging the norm of male dominance is a different question.

[LostinVA]

96. Excellent OP -- and, I'm appalled the other hasn't been locked

Ugh.

[Forkboy]

98. I have nothing, except to say...

You're on the best DUers we have, and it's posts like this that confirms that.

:hi:

[scarletwoman]

111. Thanks, Forkboy. Your kind words mean alot.

I've always loved seeing posts from you, I think you have a wonderful mind! DU is very lucky to have you around.

:yourock:
sw

[stevedeshazer]

99. Fat chick

Like you.

[scarletwoman]

114. Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.

:D

[hisownpetard]

101. This is a really well-reasoned, well-presented post. It puts into very succinct terms

the toxic attitude toward women that has been so prevalent in our society and which, even now,
underlies much of our societal structure.

It needs to be pointed out, as you did so well, since many people (of both sexes) just accept these terms
as part of their every day life without thinking of the cause and effect.

Even the word 'hysterical,' which is universally applied to women (often as an exaggerated put-down), comes from
the same word root as "hysterectomy." A huge insult, if you think about it.

Thanks for the great OP (and I also appreciated the intelligent discussion with Kurovski. It'd be wonderful if this kind of high-level
exchange of ideas could be seen more often on DU, wouldn't it?).
:headbang: :applause: :toast:

[scarletwoman]

119. Wow, thank you much! You're one of my favorite DUers, so your support means alot.

Great point about "hysterical". Obviously, what I posted merely scratches the surface of how our language reflects the prevailing cultural presumption of male superiority.

Please see TahitiNut's post #91 above for his excellent point about the word "cuckold": "There is no equivalent perjorative for a woman married to an unfaithful husband."

And Bongo Prophet's post #21 above is one of the finest posts on this thread, it covers alot of this territory.

Thank you again, I think :yourock:, too!

:loveya:
sw

[hisownpetard]

128. Wow, right back! I am flattered and happy and floored that you said I am one of your favorites.

First of all, I didn't know anyone even noticed I was here!
And, secondly, I feel the same way about you and your posts. I was getting worried 'cause I hadn't seen you around.
So I'm doubly happy to hear from you now. Thanks for that wonderful compliment.

You made my day!!

[scarletwoman]

130. Don't be floored, you post some very high quality stuff -- I'm happy to recognize that and give you

the props you deserve.

Being an oldtimer here, it's always a treat to see other high-quality women DUers show up. Back when DU was much smaller, it was alot easier for us women of like mind to hang out together and support each other. I will always treasure the presence of like-minded women on DU.

I'm actually always hanging around here, I just very rarely start my own threads. I do, however, make comments quite often on other people's threads -- but it's just random chance that anyone happens to read them.

:hug:
sw

[hisownpetard]

131. Happy to be part of the HQWDU (High-Quality Women of DU) brigade!

:loveya: :hi: :hug:

[scarletwoman]

133. Welcome!

:D

[Blue_In_AK]

102. Excellent point, SW...

You said it all very eloquently. It's interesting that even epithets like "son of a bitch" and "bastard" directed at men ultimately disparage women. I try not to let this kind of stuff get to me -- I guess living with an abuser for almost 20 years made me pretty thick-skinned -- but you definitely do have a good insight here.

[scarletwoman]

125. Thank you so much, Blue! It's not that these things get to me personally -- hell, I've always made

my own way just fine, even before "women's lib". But I do get bugged by the unconsciousness that the use of woman-demeaning language represents, and how it perpetuates the cultural mindset of male dominance.

And if we can't point these things out on a supposedly "progressive" board, how can we ever hope to evolve the culture?

Thank you for your support!

:hug:
sw

[porphyrian]

106. When women run things, can we think it's funny?

Or will you scold us for laughing then, too?

[scarletwoman]

108. Get back to me when women run things. (nt)

[LostinVA]

110. Heh -- I see you're replying to "Ignored"

[scarletwoman]

112. LOL! (nt)

[Evergreen Emerald]

113. Exactly!

Good post. I am amazed that people on DU are denying that sexism plays any role in the Clinton hating that is going on here on DU and across America.

[scarletwoman]

115. Thank you! The irony is, I actually very much dislike Hillary Clinton for her politics, but

I absolutely will NOT put up with attacks on her based on her gender.

sw

[RebelSansCause]

116. misogynist?

[Desertrose]

117. Dang it, scarletwoman...you are absolutely right!

:hi: Great thread!!!!

:hug:
DR

[scarletwoman]

121. DR!!!!!! Wow! You found me!

It's SOOOOOO great to see you! Thank you for your support!

Watcha been up to these days? I hardly ever see you on DU anymore -- DU's loss, for sure! I've definitely missed hanging out with you on these boards.

:hi: :loveya: :hug:
sw

[Desertrose]

122. Have mostly been really busy in the studio lately.....

Always have to say :hi: and give you a :hug: when I see you around.....

:loveya:
DR

[scarletwoman]

124. I'm so grateful that you do!

Btw, I had a computer meltdown awhile back and lost my entire email program, my address book and all my bookmarks. I still don't have my email back, but I'd really like to have the link to your website again (via pm) -- I'd love to see what you've been up to.

Merry Solstice!
sw
:loveya:

[Djinn]

120. Hillary's a ball breaker

Ann Coulter is a man and the Bush twins are sluts.

All themes regularly played out on DU and a large proportion of posters here see no problem with it.

Thanks for a well put post SW.

[scarletwoman]

123. Your thanks are much appreciated. It's definitely difficult to try to get DUers to see that these

things ARE a problem.

sw

[Karenina]

126. Great thread, SW!!!

:loveya:

[scarletwoman]

129. Karenina!!!! I love that so many of my favorite DU women are showing up here!

:woohoo:

I just got so pissed off that there was another "Hillary nutcracker" thread on GD yesterday, with the mods refusing to lock it. (And I'm a "hillary-hater", as they say.) So, I decided to fight back as best I could.

This has been a VERY interesting thread for me; reading all the different reactions, seeing who "gets it" and who doesn't.

I'm very proud to have you for one of my DU friends, your support means alot to me.

:loveya:
sw

p.s. I hope you'll read Bongo Prophet's post #21 above -- it really lays out the meta aspect of what I was trying to get at with my OP.

[Karenina]

172. We go back a long way, sw

and you've ALWAYS been all that and a bag o' chips in my book!!! :loveya:

[rug]

141. Pelosied.

[Raejeanowl]

152. I Thought I Was Heartily Sick Of This Subject

But you're right, and the point of your post is excellently well-taken.

I'll let it be known now: I was one of the members who lobbied the Admins to get the infamous ad for that sexist piece of crap pulled from DU.

The worst (or best) threatened male offenders think they can do to keep a woman down is to insult her attractiveness, especially her sexual desirability; although her hormonal balance and maternal status (lack of children, too many children) come close in popularity as ammo.

Co-opt any stereotypical masculine characteristics, ambitions, or behaviors (like desiring to become the U.S. president?), and you are a mutant, a bitch/witch, a closet lesbian, or some combination thereof. They'll gratuitously accept a declared lesbian who "thinks like a man," a tomboy female child who's being innocently and excusably cute, a mature woman who's a great, old, sexless broad, but a smart, vital heterosexual woman in her prime is an eternal threat. Why is that?

I've grown to hate the overuse of "phobic," but these witty guys are just plain neurotically gynophobic. As in vagina dentata. And since "castrations" are still performed on females in certain societies for purposes of power and control, they could still arguably be called "castrating males."

Do I encounter them every day? No, thank goodness. Their bigotry is about as mainstream as that of the KKK.

[joshcryer]

156. They're all gender neutral.

Though you might have missed that part.

Emasculate is gender neutral.
1 : to deprive of strength, vigor, or spirit : weaken

Ball-buster is gender neutral.
sometimes vulgar : a person who is relentlessly aggressive, intimidating, or domineering
(note, not a female, as you inaccurately seem to believe)

Castrating bitch is gender neutral.
1: to render impotent or deprive of vitality especially by psychological means
(castration is not a term meant only for the removal of male genetalia as it seems you are assuming here)

Man-eater is gender neutral.
1 : one that has or is thought to have an appetite for human flesh

You might use a different dictionary than me, but all of those terms, save the last one, I have heard used to describe both men and women alike (though "castrating bitch" is something I hadn't heard before, "bitch" has been used for both males and females in my circles).

[joshcryer]

157. It is of note that with the use of Singular They, English is entirely gender neutral.

:)

[joshcryer]

158. Some examples in my life.

"Damn, that Sergeant is an emasculating fucker." Said about a male Sergeant who bitched at us as civilian workers laying concrete.

"Bust my balls why don't you!" After being yelled at by a male coworker for forgetting to add something into our code repository, causing them much grief. Also, said by Southpark's Cartman to males and females alike.

Castrating bitch, again, not something I've heard, but I can think of a scenario easily, with regards to a male.

"Heh, he's a real man-eater." Said about my gay brothers boyfriend. ;) Though it works in the context of general people. "That (male) governor is a man-eating sonuvabitch! (In response to the treatment of homeless people.)"

[Raejeanowl]

159. Go Back And Re-Read Your Dictionary

We didn't miss that you are expressing your revisionistic opinion as if you believed it were the definitive last word on the subject.


(From Merriam-Webster's)

Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpin-yən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
Date: 14th century
1 a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b: approval, esteem
2 a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b: a generally held view
3 a: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b: the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
— opin·ioned \-yənd\ adjective
synonyms opinion, view, belief, conviction, persuasion, sentiment mean a judgment one holds as true. opinion implies a conclusion thought out yet open to dispute <each expert seemed to have a different opinion>. view suggests a subjective opinion <very assertive in stating his views>. belief implies often deliberate acceptance and intellectual assent <a firm belief in her party's platform>. conviction applies to a firmly and seriously held belief <the conviction that animal life is as sacred as human>. persuasion suggests a belief grounded on assurance (as by evidence) of its truth <was of the persuasion that everything changes>. sentiment suggests a settled opinion reflective of one's feelings <her feminist sentiments are well-known>.

Since you're visiting a dictionary, please try taking some time with the etymology while you're there, rather than superficially cherry-picking alternative definitions to buttress your views. Relying instead upon claimed contemporary usage in your circles and anecdotal events, rather than acknowledging the real history and origins of those words, is just plain sad.

[joshcryer]

161. Hmm?

What are you talking about? I used the primary definition for all of those words, all from Merriam Webster. I have heard all of them but the one the OP invented used in ocassions not related to females. I think the OP is trying to overstate certain words and how they are commonly used. While no doubt language has been used to exploit classes of people, the current trend in English is toward gender neutrality. To be unable to see this, I think, is grasping at straws. And certainly the state that it is in now is relatively gender neutral.

Basically the OP is making a baseless generalization that can apply to many scenarios and is not restricted to the scenario that is presented. I had no desire to play the OPs games because whenever someone uses a word that might be something women use to harrass men, the OP essentially invokes gender neutrality and says "men say that to men too." See posts #87 and #92. The OP never intended to actually have discourse about language and how it can be used to oppress. But that's because it would be more intricate than mere generalizations.

This always amused me, though it is sure to offend the sensibilities of some here: http://www.qwantz.com/archive/000551.html

[joshcryer]

164. I should add:

Women can say these things to men, too, they're neutral phrases in general, metaphors. I invoked the "men say that to men" argument because that's the exact argument the OP used, and that is exactly how I have experienced the language being used. Ball-buster, for instance, really and truly isn't relegated to referencing women only, really.

But I think in the end this sort of language is far more powerful coming from a woman. If a man says, "You're just a bitch." to another man, it's shrugged off. And you can't rightly throw it back at a male.

If a woman says it to a man, then you're looking at a situation where the female can "own" the word. You can't call her a bitch back, because that would be an inherently empowering position. "I *am* a bitch you little bitch monger! And don't you forget it!"

Simiarily to how certain races have begun to "own" the epithats thrown at them, to the point where they are almost meaningless within their own circles.

If you really want to find language disparities, try naming all the slang for white people and then all other people combined. Whites make up less than a dozen or two I'd wager, whereas there are hundreds for the other races or nationalities.

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

[Raejeanowl]

168. Josh, You Are Cute, But Tiresome

And I have to go to work today.

You cannot escape the fact that "masculine" is at the base of the word "emasculate," "balls" are slang for a male appendage, "castrate" arose originally as something done to men and male animals (and is only secondarily applied to women who involuntarily have their clitorises removed or vaginas sewn shut by a male society), and a "bitch" is a female dog. Man-eater is about the only term with a fuzzy or dualistic enough history to play coy and ignorant about it.

The words themselves, rooted as they are, cannot be made gender-neutral, however the definition is bowdlerized or neutralized or simply because you say it is so.

How DO you emasculate a woman? Seen any Obama nutcrackers?

[joshcryer]

195. I'll stick to my dictionary over some petty people on a message board. :)

Just sayin'. It's been my experience that these are gender neutral terms (except for the OPs convoluted invention). Feel free to make them not gender neutral terms, though. I'd rather own the insults people throw at me.

I am cute. ;)

[NuttyFluffers]

162. usually one "equivalent" is to further render sterile: old maid, bitty, governess, hag, etc.

so there is a strong similarity involving sterilization, (neutered and spayed also come to mind,) but it is further complicated by the attachment of ageism in the insult. but then "cuckold" becomes another related term against men in relation to these "anti-crone" terms because of the issue of lack of, "cheated", or unsuccessful fertility.

though there is the other colloquialisms, such as "gelding" and "taming", such as "geld that filly" or "tame that shrew". but these are more remote and require either rural ranching knowledge or shakespeare literature knowledge (not much, but some).

often for the terms you cite there'd be more of a praiseworthy attribution placed upon the man, such as "player," "gigolo," etc.

but overall your core contention is derived from the concept that excess men captured in war were to be humiliated into castrati and eunuchs whereas women captured were to be humiliated into being essentially extra breed females and nursemaids. one was sterilized, robbing future fertility; the other was kept fertile, robbing their fertility for future use against them.

so the analogous terms you are probably seeking are located in terms such as "kept in harem," "kept woman," "concubine," "love slave," "(sexual) play thing," etc. technically different in one specific way -- the *manner* of destruction of another human's fertility between the sexes after defeat -- but truly analogous in the application after spoils of war. both have their fertility destroyed and usurped for future humiliation and control. the core desire and function is the same, it's just the technical processes are different for finesse reasons.

so technically you are correct -- and incorrect -- at the very same time.

but yes, you do have a valid point that the english language, this late in the post-modern world, is rather bereft of such exactly equal epithets. hopefully in the future we can create some new ones for the sterilization of women and sexual enslavement of men. or maybe we could render gender neutral the ones we have now? or we could forego all such terms -- but that's a touch Care Bears optimistic and i'd settle for new creative epithets.

[Hekate]

163. Don't forget the "vagina dentata"! That legend gives men the willies, so to speak.

All your points are well-taken, Scarletwoman.

Hekate

[CT_Progressive]

170. You're asking if their is an equivalent of "removing testicles" that refers to a woman? Uh, no ?

Do I win a prize?

Is there a "de-recommend" button ? If not, this thread proves that there should be.

p.s. the terminology that you are seeking would have to come from women, as they would be the ones creating the term, in referring to the men. What do women call men who take their power away? I'm pretty sure women resort to plain terms such as "asshole", "bastard", "son of a bitch", etc. Women have not invented unique terms like "ball-buster". The lack of terminology is, therefore, women's fault.

[Gormy Cuss]

178. If emasculate had only one common meaning, you'd have a point.

Here's your prize: emasculate has more than one meaning in common usage.

American Heritage Dictionary -
e·mas·cu·late (ĭ-mās'kyə-lāt') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. e·mas·cu·lat·ed, e·mas·cu·lat·ing, e·mas·cu·lates

1. To castrate.
2. To deprive of strength or vigor; weaken.

[raccoon]

171. What is the equivalent term for "henpecked" that would be used to describe a

husband's behavior toward his wife?

Such a term doesn't exist.

[Lilith Velkor]

181. Cock knocked?

Sorry. Couldn't help it. :blush:

on less flippant edit: One could say the same about "pussy whipped."

[Rex]

174. Women have been 'in charge' a few times in history

Maybe a handful. If there was a term, it would never have reached an opportunity to spread among female leaders. And if it did, the patriarch would eliminate it through revision.

[Katherine Brengle]

175. Damn straight.

[scarletwoman]

177. Thank you, I'm glad you found this thread. (nt)

[Orsino]

179. There's female genital mutilation...

...but this is only partially akin, being a process thought to control female sexual desire while leaving the baby-making apparatus intact. It is all about disempowerment, but of course there's not an associated English metaphor used as an epithet.

[leftofthedial]

182. I don't care what *anybody* says

I am horribly offended.

No. Don't bother flaming me OR apologizing.

I am offended.

[scarletwoman]

206. Just curious, offended by what? It's not clear from your post. (nt)

[Matariki]

183. Slightly off topic, but I frequently use the phrase 'HAS NO CLIT'

to reproach someone lacking sensitivity and finesse.

[Occam Bandage]

184. Be careful using that phrase around African women. nt

[greyl]

185. Africa is a big place.

Female genital mutilation only occurs in Africa where it has been introduced by Muslims.

[Occam Bandage]

186. That's incorrect. It predates both Islam and Christianity in many parts of the Continent.

and is present in regions where Islam has never had a strong cultural presence. It is practiced among Christian, Muslim, and animist communities, and there's strong evidence that it has been for thousands of years. While it doesn't occur around the entire Continent, "be careful around women hailing from the crescent from Libya down to Somalia via Egypt, south through Kenya, and extending in a band westwards to the Atlantic, with many other communities practicing FGM as well, and with many communities in the aforementioned region failing to" does not fit well in a headline.

[greyl]

187. Today, I'm not aware of it being practiced in untouched African cultures.

However, thanks for the correction about it being practiced in so-called Christian African countries.

My impression is that it isn't found evenly amongst all the cultures in Africa, but rather is particularly prevalent in "Islamicised" tribes.

[HamdenRice]

188. Please stop spreading misinformation about this

This is about the third or fourth time you've spread the lie that only Islamic cultures in Africa engage in female genital mutilation. That's absolute rubbish.

Female genital mutilation, as well as male circumcision, are part of the cultural system of age grades, which are practiced in many parts sub-Saharan Africa and long predate Islam's penetration of Africa and are found in societies that have no contact with Islam. The idea is that male and female children in their early teens are inducted into adult society by attending "bush school," learning about the group's customs, history, praise songs, sexual mores, as well as their responsibilities as adults. They are then circumsized together. That group becomes an "age grade."

This has nothing to do with Islam. You are absolutely way off base and apparently uninformed about this, yet you continue to disseminate your bizarre, incorrect opinion.

[greyl]

189. I don't think you're following this little conversation very well. nt

[HamdenRice]

190. I'm following it perfectly well. You are spreading disinformation.

The idea that FGM occurs only or even predominantly in Islamic or Christianized communities is false. FGM is an indigenous practice related to the formation of age grades and the entry of teens into adulthood. It has nothing to do with contact with Islam, Christianity or western culture.

There is no other way to parse it. You are wrong. Period.

You are misinformed, but persist in spreading your misinformed pseudo-facts.

This is the danger of making up cultures in your head rather than learning about the real world.

[greyl]

192. Feel free to provide evidence for what you're proclaiming.

You'll need to support this statement of yours:

"The idea that FGM occurs predominantly in Islamic or Christianized communities is false."

Sorry, but I won't accept your limited experience as a genuine appeal to authority. Please provide others.

[HamdenRice]

193. Um ... like you have any evidence whatsoever?

The number of sources for my assertion is so vast, I could basically site any anthropological bibliography of Africa. You're the one making the preposterous claim, so you're the one who needs extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim.

But since we live in the age of the internets, why don't you just google or go to wiki to see how preposterous your claim is on its face.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting#Cultural_aspects

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEEDB1738F937A15752C1A965958260

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:FXPjXafPt4IJ:rudar.ruc.dk/bitstream/1800/1095/4/msoBECD0.pdf+kenyatta+circumcision&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-387088_ITM

Now, where are your sources?

[greyl]

197. Still waiting for support for your claim.

"The idea that FGM occurs predominantly in Islamic or Christianized communities is false." - HamdenRice

Quotes and links to the quotes, please. I don't see how the links you've given so far support your claim.

[HamdenRice]

198. Time wasting distraction because you've been busted

Read the short articles cited, including wiki, which clearly explain that FGM predates Islam and Christianity and is not related to those religions.

If you're afraid to read them or acknowledge what they say, that's your problem.

[greyl]

199. Like hell. Please pull the quotes from your links which support your claim.

"The idea that FGM occurs predominantly in Islamic or Christianized communities is false." - HamdenRice

[HamdenRice]

201. Are you illiterate?

greyl: "Female genital mutilation only occurs in Africa where it has been introduced by Muslims."

That's bullshit.

greyl: "Today, I'm not aware of it being practiced in untouched African cultures.
However, thanks for the correction about it being practiced in so-called Christian African countries.
My impression is that it isn't found evenly amongst all the cultures in Africa, but rather is particularly prevalent in "Islamicised" tribes."

That's more bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting#Cultural_aspects

The traditional cultural practice of FGC predates both Islam and Christianity and there is no clear understanding of where or why the practice of FGC came into existence. Greek papyrus from 163 B.C. mentions girls in Egypt undergoing circumcision and it is widely accepted to have originated in Egypt and the Nile valley at the time of the Pharaohs. Evidence from mummies have shown both Type I and Type III FGC present. <18> While the spread of the practice of FGC is unknown, the procedure is now practiced among Muslims, Christians, and Animists.<19>

Although FGC is practiced within particular religious sub-cultures, its prevalence cannot be construed as a religious practice. FGC transcends religion as it is primarily a cultural practice. <20> <21><22> UNICEF stated that when "looking at religion independently, it is not possible to establish a general association with FGM/C status."<23> The arguments used to support FGC are multifaceted and vary among societies that accept the traditional practices; they range from health-related to social benefits:<24>

<end quote>

The other articles describe FGM as part of a rite of passage into age grades in non-Islamic Kenya.

You just don't know what you're talking about and have failed miserably to provide any evidence that FGM is related to the Islamicization or Christianization of African societies.

As usual, you were talking out of your ass and are completely uninformed on this issue. Yet you continue to make your preposterous claims with no evidence whatsoever.

[Occam Bandage]

202. Sure. From the UNICEF report linked from Wiki:

"Looking at religion independently, it is not possible to establish a general association with FGM/C status...(what links exist) are best attributed to other factors, such as ethnicity, and (ethnic) distribution of religious groups."

"Among all socio-economic variables, ethnicity appears to have the most determining influence over FGM/C distribution within a country. Many researchers have noted that FGC prevalence varies with ethnicity or that FGC serves as an ethnic marker...Female circumcision practices are deeply entwined with ethnic identity wherever they are found."

You've just been completely busted, sir.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

191. oppress. nt

[Elspeth]

207. Too late to recommend or I would

:kick: