OK, I've just been informed by a number of posters, that "pansy"

[cali]

isn't a slur toward gay people. Now, that's the only definition of it that I'm familiar with (outside of the lovely flower of course). Am I wrong?

[ShortnFiery]

1. Oh Geeze, do we have to rehash this tired old shit that only serves to divide us.

:(

[mitchtv]

73. whachyu mean "us"

we are already excluded from Obamanation

[aquart]

2. Did you ask them to define it for you?

Go back and do that. It's always important to find out wtf they think they're talking about before you proceed.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberal N proud]

3. I don't know, when I there was a kid was nicknamed pansy

He never turned out gay or anything.

The reason he was called pansy at the time was his mother wouldn't let him do anything the other kids did. It was a small town, kids are cruel and the kid suffered because of it.

He did turn out to be a drug dealer when he got away from his mother.

[Vanje]

9. The kid called "Pansy" didnt like it

Apparently the term was an insult.

[On the Road]

4. Unlike Some Similar Terms, I Always Took Pansy to Mean

weak, ineffectual, and perhaps effeminate, but not gay. There may be different understandings of the term.

[TheWraith]

11. I would add weak willed or easily dominated as one of the definitions.

It's a borderline thing because while it doesn't directly mean gay, the term has classically been used to describe a lot of gay men who meet a certain stereotype definition (as well as straight men and others who didn't meet the user's definition of manliness). Personally, though, given a choice between fixing actual discrimination and a piece of language can be interpreted as a slight, I'd rather do the former any day.

[On the Road]

20. Right, It Should Certainly be Avoided

and if I were gay I would feel it as a very definite slight.

[TheWraith]

25. Like havocmom, I get itchy when people talk about what words are and aren't okay.

Even when it's words that I personally would never use because I find them classless, I feel there's something fundamentally inappropriate about trying to constrain freedom of expression.

Worse, there can be the illusion created that because people aren't using the overt trigger words, that they're not behaving in a discriminatory way. You can find it every day in the code-words that right wingers use, particularly to talk about gays and black folks.

[havocmom]

15. There ARE many different understandings of the word, and the one you mention is common too

:shrug:

I always cringe at people who want to limit language. They end up shortchanging communication. One could take a moment and ponder why.

[Sal Minella]

32. Yes, deferential and ineffectual. "Wallflower" would perhaps be the feminine noun.

The pansy and wallflower blend into the background, making no effort to be noticed.

Eddit: tiepo

[dipsydoodle]

104. Given that Pansy is actually a girls name

you don't really need a feminine alternative. My 90 year old neighbour , who passed away 6 years ago, was christened Pansy and her sister Rose. I've no idea how on earth it came to be associated with gays assuming that to be so - wasn't when I was kid in the '40s. My grandmother would call me that if I did something silly.

[Sebastian Doyle]

5. Well, Pansy Division doesn't think so

http://www.crushermagazine.com/images/rev1203/[e-mail]

[Toasterlad]

87. Groovy Underwear is the Greatest Song Ever Written.

[davidinalameda]

103. you have any idea why they have the name Pansy Division?

do you?

[mainegreen]

7. It's always meant as an insult, but need not be used as a slur against gays.

The use of pansy as an insult has always been able to connote a man who behaves childishly or is a coward, without the homosexual implication.

A man who refuses to engage in some brave act could be declared by his comrades to be a pansy without any implication that he's gay. It's still a put down, though.

Depends on context, really.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. It is not a slur against gay people -

it is a slur against all males with effeminate mannerisms, gay or straight.

[ShortnFiery]

12. What's funny, in a sad way - is that some feminine manners are nurturing but always

seem to get a bad Rap.

Having grown up around redneck brothers who always figuratively swaggered, I picked up on some of the lingo.

One guy told me that I was the most aggressive woman that he ever met. I replied, "That's the kindest thing anyone has ever said to me. Wait?!? I think I might have to go have a good cry." :P

Nothing wrong in the modern world with a mix of feminine and masculine traits - the best of all worlds, i.e., androgynous

[JohnnyLib2]

22. That's how I understood it while growing up.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. it is a slur towards gender deviant men. so trans men, effinate men and gay men

often gay is assumed to be feminine, so in that yes, pansy has been used as a euphimism for gay too

[ShortnFiery]

16. But what's wrong with being feminine, per se? No wonder we get along so famously -

I'm a "tomboy" ... or I guess at this point "tomMAN?"

I was outside our Marine Corps housing on Okinawa changing the tire on our car. A couple of women commented to me, "Oh it's too bad your husband is not home so he can fix that for you." To which I replied, "Oh he's home but inside fixing dinner!"

The looks I received at just stating the truth. My husband is from New Orleans and fancies himself (I agree) a creole chef on the weekends. I however, would rather change a tire or fix something than step a foot in the kitchen.

God bless androgyny! :patriot:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. arent you the one puking about men in eyeliners 2 days ago?

so i dont believe for a second that you use gender deviance as a compliment

[ShortnFiery]

27. OMG! I apologized to you for that prejudice ... TWICE! You can't forgive, can you?

I'm an Army veteran who was (& is still) married to an active duty MARINE for 18 of the 20 years he was in the Corps.

I will try to be more self aware, but please don't HATE ME for MY ENVIRONMENT? :shrug:

No worries though, I will choose to respect you anyway.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

35. get over yourself. i dont hate you for your environment. i dont even hate you

you're not that important in my life. i do think of you as a crazy poster who loves hyperbole w.very little substance.

[ShortnFiery]

37. Of course you dislike me. You revel in the opportunity to slight. But that's OK.

My mother taught me to value every human being and treat them with basic respect. I guess I sometimes focus on those who are the rudest toward me - just to see what life's like "on the other side."

Have a good day BUDDY! SnF

[Zenlitened]

77. "My mother taught me to value every human being and treat them with basic respect."

How's that coming along? :rofl:

[cali]

21. What part of it's historically been used

as a perjorative against gays or men who are perceived as effeminate- which really is tantamount to the same intent to slur.

And why are you even here, beyond trying to harass me? You have never expressed any interest in GLBT issues or equality.

[ShortnFiery]

29. If you ever spent more than one day in an active duty military environment, that term is bantied

about quite a lot. Sorry, we don't travel in the same circles? :shrug:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

38. in active military duty, one cant identify as gay either so really not the best example

to use in this case.

[ShortnFiery]

39. But that's my point. There are GOOD People serving in the Active Duty military. When

they come back to civilian life, we should NOT write them off as "hopeless."

It's just a suggestion but IMO we shouldn't turn away but try to educate some people who were raised bigoted/prejudiced but whose heart is in the right place?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

42. if they pretend the military way of rejecting gay people and the sensitivities of that community

is the only way to behave, i am fine rejecting them.

[ShortnFiery]

44. But it doesn't have to be "the military way."

You KNOW there are gay and lesbian people serving on AD right now - we can't REJECT THEM.

It's complex and we do "pretend" for our bosses and loved ones albeit small ways (not to hurt their feelings) each and every day.

My final point: I just think that it's a shame that you won't open up enough to help educate those who just have not LEARNED better. :(

Have a good day. :hi:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

47. you are the ONLY one who keeps bringing up the military. not me. quit using them

as your excuse for who you are and what you say

[ShortnFiery]

60. Why? You just want them to "go away." Isn't it far beyond time that we help them to

glean equal rights? It's NOT an excuse but "an explanation."

If you don't understand WHY people continue to use these words, then you will not be able to lessen the frequency of their use.

[mitchtv]

64. Cali, it is a very nasty slur, ifa little obsolete

It comes from ppeople who didn't want to use sexualy loaded terms, plus there are less of that type of Gay man around to use it on. Yes there are other uses but we all know what it means - Faggot

[Vanje]

13. Its a slur toward males who may be percieved as gay

Thats pretty close to an anti-gay slur

[sinkingfeeling]

14. I always used it instead of 'coward' or 'chicken'. That seems to play out in most thesaurus entries.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/pansy

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Context matters, though as an insult or derogatory comment, its not just limited to gays

[step up]

19. Who are these posters? Unless they are gay, their opinions mean zilch to me...

I always go by the people whom are affected.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

23. pansy has been traditionally used as a slur or euphimism for gay men

atleast in british english speaking countries

[step up]

24. When I first read the OP, I associated the word for an effeminate

(and therefore assumed homosexual) man. I find it offensive and would never use it.

I think that 'pussy' or 'wuss' would suffice, however.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

28. pussy is sexist. nt

[step up]

30. Yeah, well..as a woman, I don't have major issues with it (and I dislike 'bitch')

One thing that really irks me is when a female athlete says something like: "I throw like a girl," and it's a bad thing!

[ShortnFiery]

31. Sorry to rain on your parade but the term "pussy" is equal to "wuss" in the AD military.

Damn, you know people who will converse with you and attempt to explain their SEPARATE LIFE EXPERIENCES are not anti-GBLT nor "the enemy."

You slam the door on a number of us people who are TRYING to become enlightened.

Just because we may slip-up and use the wrong language or express something that offends you does NOT make us inherently BAD PEOPLE.

Believe it our now we all harbor our little corner of inappropriate prejudices.

The good people, realize that they have that fault and try their best to educate themselves and rise above it.

However, belittling a person who makes a mistake is not the answer. :(

[Runcible Spoon]

34. My mom gardens a lot and she says we should re-take "pansy" as a word

She says they are actually very brave hardy little flowers! That they bloom early and grow where other more high maintenance flowers won't!

I love my mom she's so cute.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

36. that is adorable. i think pansy and pussy are ironic, in that people use it to mean weak

but really both these things are very strong. on the other hand "balls" are weak.

[mitchtv]

65. and don't believe otherwise

pansy= fag= homo= faggot= et al

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. this is an interesting link

http://books.google.com/books?id=406CCTn4AAQC&pg=PA514&lpg=PA514&dq=pansy+euphimism&source=bl&ots=1HtCjUcGNY&sig=SCM6z5nLxy18yPOnSX_jFPx01Hk&hl=en&ei=m-bUSeTPOeTPjAfzu9mbCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2

[ShortnFiery]

33. One and only one definition will be accepted? nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

41. again, i dont expect YOU to behave in a way that is respectful towards

gay people and gender non-conformant people. this is for the rest of us.

[ShortnFiery]

43. But I do respect the groups you delineated and I know what it feels like to be a minority.

What I object to is your "us vs. them" type attitude.

I am not the enemy.

Hell! The basic troop serving in the military is not your enemy.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

46. i hate the way you obfuscate what i am talking about. i have never said a single word

against the military. i just dont like your personal attitude. quit using the military or your age as excuses.

take some responsibility for your words and thoughts.

[ShortnFiery]

50. "you don't like" could that equate to "you HATE?"

You are the person who refuses to take responsibility and wish to play "word police."

You just won't accept that you TOO can be hypocritical like the rest of us mere mortals. :shrug:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

52. i am not being the word "police", you can say any sexist, homophobic thing you choose to

just dont pretend it isnt what it is.

[ShortnFiery]

54. If you are going to "reject" every person who has said anything sexist, homophobic etc.

there won't be anyone left on this earth. Have you ever thought that just because YOU INSIST that a word is wrong that it does not "make it so?"

You DISMISS whole "groups of people" because they are not LIKE YOU. Doesn't that sound a little disconcerting?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

56. you are not whole groups of people. nt

[ShortnFiery]

57. No, you ID'd the Military as not accepting of gays and to be dismissed. Or are you having

a change of heart? Because I'd bet money that even military people who are gay just may have used the word "pansy" to mean "WUSS?"

But that would break YOUR CONNOTATION? Damn, that may be difficult to accept?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

62. you kept bringing up the military as though it excuses your behavior or the words you use. my point

was, what you can say in the military doesnt necessarily work in an atmosophere where gay people can be out and vocal. i am sure you can say a lot of homophobic things in an environment where gay people cant out themselves for fear of being fired.

[ShortnFiery]

63. OMG! You are unreachable.

I give up. Yeah, you win. :eyes:

[Zenlitened]

76. I'm not so sure of that!

:spray:

[noamnety]

70. None of us are under any obligation to be "accepting" or "tolerant"

of any form of bigotry.

The issue isn't that some people aren't "like us."

The issue is that some people perpetuate homophobia, sexism and racism through their words and actions. On this website, you will regularly see people speak out against it, and if you chose to use words that perpetuate homophobia, sexism and racism, you should expect to get called on it.

Sometimes you might use those words without realizing the meaning behind them - we all have been raised with some level of cultural ignorance. No matter, even if you used a bigoted word in ignorance, you will still get called on it here.

How you react to it when it happens is the measure of who you are. You can seek to understand the reason it's offensive, which requires listening, apologize for misunderstandings, thank people for explaining it - even if you have to prod them to explain why. You should thank them, because believe it or not, it's not their job in life to have to explain Oppression 101 to every straight/white/male/christian/whatever majority group that comes along. People have lives outside of that - even minorities have lives that don't revolve around having to patiently teach every ignorant majority soul who comes along. This may be hard to grasp, but that shit gets old after about the thousandth time.

Or, if you get called on using offensive language, you can react defensively, you can self-righteously defend your "right" to speak in bigoted ways. And yes, freedom of speech includes the right to express bigoted views, or express ideas in bigoted ways, but I can't figure out why you'd be proud of that in yourself.

I'd like to request that you don't hide behind military culture as an excuse. I'm prior service. My partner works for the army. So from one army vet to another, I am publicly saying that this is a nonexcuse for not listening to people if they tell you you are on the wrong track here. One of the things we SHOULD have learned in the military is that brute force and posturing is rarely as effective as listening to and understanding the local population. Something to reflect on here.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

71. this is a really well written post and i am not stating it because we agree

its very cogent.

[Zuiderelle]

95. Great post. You should re-post this as an OP.

:thumbsup:

[noamnety]

40. It's a combo slur - two slurs in one!

Both homophobic and misogynistic - the implication being that the target of the slur is being too feminine - and therefore, a lesser being worthy of contempt.

[JohnnyLib2]

45. Yup.

I work with teens and younger. Sadly, that is still true in too many instances.

[ShortnFiery]

49. R.I.P. George Carlin - you just may be better off in the afterlife.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

48. well stated. nt

[TEmperorHasNoClothes]

51. why would you even post this- have you even known a slur to vanish?

Why take the chance, even if it was true.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

53. to clarify whether the usage is or is not homophobic. people have the right to ask or know

how a community feels toward a particular word/expression or idea

[ShortnFiery]

55. Yes, it's too bad you could not positively WIN those of us who have used this word to "your view"

with genuine arguments and some understanding and empathy, INSTEAD of flatly demanding that we are irrelevant if we don't understand your "special" view of this subject? That's just plain "elitist."

[Vanje]

58. If you came to this discussion for "understanding and empathy."

Why is it that all you're doing is fighting?

There are dozens of posts here, thoughtfully reflecting on the OP question.
You might read them instead of continuing an obvious flame-war imported to GLBT from some other forum.

If its the fighting you like, ...and I can sort of understand why it might have recreational value for some, but then dont pretend to be here in the persuit of "understanding and empathy."

[ShortnFiery]

59. No, I don't like the fighting. I will choose not to use the word "pansy" personally from now on.

But it's a PERSONAL choice.

What I'm trying to do is NOT fight but give some of you a richer understanding that just like the GBLT community is not one-dimensional, neither is the large Military Communities within the USA.

What I'm trying to do is SUGGEST that you start "a conversation" with a little less hostility?

I want EQUAL RIGHTS for the GBLT community within all facets of American Society. However, the more you get "bent out of shape" about the use of a word that many of us were taught in our youth by rednecks and we're too UNENLIGHTENED to not know better.

Well, I FEEL that you could at least try to educate us instead of behaving nasty and dismissing our experiences as "homophobic" and irrelevant?

Don't you realize that saying crappy things like "gay" and "pansy" is often-times due to lack of understanding toward your thoughts and feelings? But you are not going to reach us (me, "yes" I get it) if you start out from a position of ARROGANCE and DISMISSIVENESS.

That's all ... a little patience with those of us who were raised in very bigoted environments but who are TRYING to do our best to be better people. :shrug:

[mitchtv]

75. no patience left

but I don't expect you yo understand the being a first class citizen and all. You probably don't understand what it is to "get your Gay knocks". I'm not trying to be mean, but Gays have had it to about here with strait people telling us how it is and how we can achieve our rights.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mitchtv]

66. oh go away

It is a nasty word, generally applied to call someone a faggot. You can hem and haw about secondary meanings, but until it is used on you to degrade and demean you, you and your military environment CANNOT understand, Cause we only get the Faggot interpertation applied to us

[La Lioness Priyanka]

69. are you unreachable, like me?

:hi:

[mitchtv]

72. insulting is insuting

It reached me alright

[soothsayer]

61. As a card carrying career lesbian, I find it gay to worry about stupid words

I thought we queer folk were taking back these silly labels

[mitchtv]

67. like using "gay" as a synonym for stupid?

Just for the record "queer' May be fine for the younger ones who haven't heard it with a fist attached

[mitchtv]

93. and I find it bitchy to use Gays in that context

[queerart]

79. Thank You For Saying It!

I thought we queer folk were taking back these silly labels

As I Am So With You On This Topic...... Haters Have No Idea What To Do When They Have No Ammo......

[mitchtv]

89. does that mean you agree with her use of "it's Gay"?

to me that seems rather regressive and hateful (and juvenile)

[queerart]

91. Hummmmmmm........

I'm not going to get into a "pissing contest" (over someone's personal "Taboo word list") when another member from the GLBTQ community might comment in a way that one may, or may not agree with (as a general rule).......


If that's the case, (meaning, if we have to observe whoever's personal "Taboo word list" within the GLBTQ community)..... then I want my "Taboo words" for the GLBTQ community added to that list as well.....


... and what the Hell......


If we are going to have "Taboo words" (that other members of our own community dare not speak)....


Then I also want to add certain "Taboo behaviors" for the GLBTQ community as well... (as I don't always agree with every behavior of the GLBTQ community)......


.....and now that I think about it.... I also want to add "Taboo thoughts" for the GLBTQ community..... (I will jot those down as I ponder how I demand others of the GLBTQ community to act at all times)......


.....and having discovered this new found power..... I will also be posting a list of "Taboo Jobs" within the GLBTQ community..... "Taboo neighborhoods" within the GLBTQ community.... and of course, "Taboo Religions" within the GLBTQ community.... while ending with my biggest Taboo for any, and all members the GLBTQ community.....


"No Spandex", end of story.......



----------------------------------------




OR..... Maybe instead of making "Taboo Lists" for other members of the GLBTQ community to follow as I see fit.......



I'll just save my energy for fighting those who really do mean harm to the GLBTQ community.....


.....so in the future I think I will just take a deep breath, and relax when other members of the GLBTQ community use words that I might not agree with........


Which is neither regressive, nor juvenile..... but is in fact a reasonable personal plan in which the 3 piece matching word baggage is missing from the equation...... that others gleefully tote around.......

[Zuiderelle]

96. Why didn't you just go all out and say "As a card carrying bull-dyke"

It's so "gay" to "pansy" out and just meekly call yourself a lesbian.

:eyes:

[FreeState]

68. As a gay man I see the word as a slur and a sexist statement all in one - its offensive

to me.

[Smarmie Doofus]

74. It's a slur. nt

[Two Americas]

80. hail, hail

"Hail, hail, the gang's all here!
What the heck do we care, what the heck to we care?"

Welcome to today's episode of "Ask the Gays."

First, here is a letter from one of our viewers....

Dear Ask a Gay,

We are planning a fundraiser for our organization, and we thought that a "Pride" theme might be fun and help promote tolerance.

What we are wondering is this - should we hire actual gays for the event, or would it be OK to just have some of our members dress up and play the role?

We don't want to offend anyone.

Thanks in advance!

I. M. Clueless

[galledgoblin]

81. environment/ignorace is a crappy excuse

I grew up around rednecks. I also was the one who made myself unpopular in high school by chewing out people who tossed around "faggot" casually. people recognize what is wrong, they just lack the courage to stand up to it.

it's the 21st century, people need to get with it already.

[LostinVA]

82. It is no different than "fag"

[Deep13]

83. Pansy, sissy, fruits and others are all standard insults referencing gay men.

Except for the actual flower, it's overt meaning may be an insult to his masculinity, but the implication is that the man is like a gay man. For some reason, a lot of people have always assumed that gay men were necessarily unmanly (however you want to define that) and any comparison to one meant that the target of the insult was not really a man. So even when pansy is not intended to be homophobic, below the surface it still is.

"Sissy" was used by movies during the Hays code to reference a homosexual man while pretending for the censors not to notice his sexuality. Again it assumes a lack of masculinity. I'm not sure where "fruit" came from, but I wonder if it is a reference to Carmen Miranda who wore tropical fruit in her hat while doing a flamboyant dance.

So yeah, it's a homophobic slur.

[bluedawg12]

84. It's a slur. When people use it they are using a slur.

[Zuiderelle]

85. It's always entertaining to see a bunch of straight people flaming about

things offensive to gay people, in a gay forum, of all places. What a riot.

[Toasterlad]

86. Here We Go Again With This Nonsense About WORDS

As with any "slur", it depends on the context. I really don't get why people have such a hard time with this concept. It's so fucking simple.

[FreeState]

88. So I can call you Fuck Face then? After all its just words!

/sarcasm

As someone who has been called pansy and other slurs and I can assure its not about words but rather emotional baggage and slander that lie behind such "words."

Seriously, words hurt. Words have a meaning and can and are be used as weapons. Ask anyone who has ever been domestically abused its the words that are used that cause the lasting harm, not the punches.

Why are you putting the word slur in quotes?

[Toasterlad]

97. Feel Free

My friends and I call each other "fuck-face" and other horrible things all the time. That's how we roll. Since I know them, and know that their intention is to amuse, it doesn't bother me. In fact, I enjoy it very much. See? Context.

Words absolutely can hurt. But I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep, or have my feelings hurt one iota, by some anonymous poster on the internet calling me a nasty name. As I've said repeatedly, if you're that thin-skinned, you have no business on the internet. Why on earth would you possibly give someone you don't even know the power to hurt your feelings? We teach children that sticks and stones can break our bones, but names will never hurt us. And yet, these days it seems that words are ALL that matter, and actions count for little. Political correctness is an oxymoron.

I put "slur" in quotes because it's only a slur if you believe it to be.

[FreeState]

98. I agree with all but two points...

Those two points are:

No one gets to decide weather a word is a slur or not - if an individual finds it offensive you can not tell them not to. Just because you believe its not a slur does not mean that anyone else believes that.

Not using a word that has significant historical baggages is not being PC. Its out of common respect and understanding that we dont use the N word - the same could be said of words that have historically been used to degrade any minority.

[Toasterlad]

99. Well...

I didn't say that people weren't free to find words offensive. I'm merely suggesting that it's childish and rather stupid to brand a word "bad" regardless of context.

Should the "N word" be edited out of Huckleberry Finn?

[bluedawg12]

100. Could Huck Finn be written in the same manner today?

With the same language? Should it?

>>The book is noted for its colorful description of people and places along the Mississippi River. By satirizing a Southern antebellum society that was already anachronistic at the time, the book is an often scathing look at entrenched attitudes, particularly racism. The drifting journey of Huck and his friend Jim, a runaway slave, down the Mississippi River on their raft may be one of the most enduring images of escape and freedom in all of American literature.

The book has been popular with young readers since its publication and is taken as a sequel to the comparatively innocuous The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. It has also been the continued object of study by serious literary critics. The book was criticized upon release because of its coarse language, and became even more controversial in the 20th century because of its perceived use of racial stereotypes and because of its frequent use of the racial slur, < word edited by bd12> "n-word".<< -
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventures_of_Huckleberry_Finn

F*ck face may be crass, but it doesn't carry the same hate message as racial slurs, slurs against minorities, women and sexual minority groups.

When people attempt to raise themselves, as a group, above prejudice they guard their good name as a group carefully, it doesn't matter where the slur occurs, whether it's real life, TV and movie media, print media, or on a public internet forum that has a claim to over 43 million views since 2001.

That's not over kill on PC, it's not fake out rage, it is true for people who have a history of oppression.

There's a difference about what what friends say in private context and how people hope to be seen in society and often fight to be seen that way.

[Toasterlad]

106. There's No Question That the "N word" Is Historically Loaded

And yet, many black people use it constantly, in much the same way that many gay people use "fag". The point is that the word itself is not inherently bad - words are only tools used to express an idea or meaning. It is the MEANING that is bad or good. The meaning is measured by the context, or HOW a word is used.

Political correctness is counter-productive because it indiscriminately brands words off-limits. But the removal of ANY language tool is a hindrance to dialog, not an asset. No, Huckleberry Finn could not have been written that way today. I'd like to think that the more pressing reason for why not is that we've socially evolved past the point where a man is so identified by race that it could be part of his name. But there are people who would object to the equivalent of a Huckleberry Finn being written right now - there are people (MANY people) who object to the original being taught and read now. As if Huckleberry Finn and books like it weren't a huge part of that social evolution...and as if they still don't have much to say to us today.

Political correctness is about HIDING differences, not celebrating them. You do not make progress by forcing people to pretend they believe others to be equal. You make progress by acknowledging that prejudice and educating it. That cannot be done by starting from a false assumption: that everyone agrees on what is correct. And that is basis of political correctness.

[bluedawg12]

107. There's No Question That the "F word" Is Historically Loaded

Why can’t we talk in inoffensive language?

Why defend the use of coarse language that perpetuate stereotypes and reinforces bigotry?

What is the fascination of justifying hostile language, toxic language, in public and for that matter, in private? Just what the hell is so clever about calling friends: fuck face? I guess, this bit is just a matter of personal taste, because fuck faces are not a historically oppressed group.

But, calling friends fuck face, while beside the point, is still a form of hostile language. It almost makes me wonder about over compensation.

Let’s stick to gay issues as we are in a GLBT forum.

PC in public is not censorship, to the contrary, it acknowledges free speech and exhorts people to rise above ugly speech and bigoted ideas.

The “F” word is historically loaded and remains loaded today.

The famous hate sign “G-d hates F*gs” is incendiary and ugly, it is not speech neutral, it is loathsome. It does not defuse hate, it reinforces it for some ( the rabid haters), for many it’s a public reminder that gays are different and for others it is so shocking that it actually works against the authors to create some backlash. Talk about paying your dues to come out on the other side of an issue. I’d rather the signs were never there, than, to have to see them and wait for society to process them and hope that the majority end in backlash and pro-gay sympathy. Because of free speech, which I support, the signs remain and are legal, but man, the words do create an effect and there is a price to pay. The price is paid every time people hurl anti-gay epithets at a gay person on the street, at work, or in any other public setting, including the internet.

Because those signs are public and rather too commonly seen, does that mean I buy into the notion that “G-d hates F*gs” simply because I object to them? Not at all. On the other hand, ignoring their public presence and not denouncing them seems to indicate a passivity when some counter protest is called for.

Slurs are dehumanizing. Slurs objectify people. Slurs reinforce stereotypes.

Private and public speech or “context.”

The old Lenny Bruce argument, “they’re just words.” Oh please.

Let’s make a distinction between private use and public use, your concept of “context,” instead of making it seem like pointless censorship.

If gay men use the “F” word among themselves and with friends, of course that’s context neutral. Where’s the threat? Is there any chance one will suddenly burst forth, go bonkers and start yelling, “Im going to kill you, you f*cking F**?”

On the other hand, if a gay man walks out of a bar at night alone and three young males approach him and start shouting, “You f*cking F**,” those words convey a threat borne of an attitude.

I talked with a gay man this week, he was mugged three times in the last two years.
On the last occasion he had to be taken to the emergency room. I know he doesn’t find gay slurs speech funny, clever, or neutral and I bet he would be offended if someone shouted “Hey F**!”

If the prevailing attitude in society were one of acceptance towards gays, then, who cares about slurs, because there can be no slurs.

Where’s the slur for the dominant culture, for heterosexual males?

“Man you are macho!” Or, “You are so manly!”

:rofl: We can see how that is not a slur to the dominant culture.

Or how about the discrimination of “reverse gender role slurs” assigned to one group?

Why does that work?

Well, if you want to insult a str8 male, call him a “sissy,” a “pansy,” a “F*g” or *gasp* call him a “woman.”

Why is it that calling a woman a pansy is a non issue. Comparing a woman to a flower is almost a compliment, “My little rosebud.” In fact, “ Gather Ye rosebuds while ye may.”

Yet, comparing a male to something delicate implies a deviation from the dominant cultures accepted expression of manliness.

Why is it that calling a man, “mannish” is not a slur, in fact, it would be silly, while calling a woman “mannish” is a put down?

The dominant culture, while changing at a glacial crawl, is still pretty much homophobic. To the extent that gay slurs are publicly thrown around, they demean the reference group and they reinforce stereotypes and bigotry.

It is also completely ignoring that segment of society that projects itself against hetero-normative expectations.

I don’t want to see men who express themselves in more typically feminine ways subjected to name calling and hate speech.

Progress would be, live and let live. It’s no skin off of our nose if a man is more “feminine” identified or if a woman is more “masculine” indentified, than the prevailing norm.

“PC” is not oppressive, it is this f8kcing preoccupation in society that everyone should look and act according to the prevailing so called norm that is oppressive, especially, when it seems that gender expression is a continuum and not the extremes of masculine or feminine, that we are led to believe on a daily basis.

What’s all this hostility that we have to call them out, sometimes beat them, sometimes kill them, for simply being who they are?

That’s why this is a nonsensical statement: As a gay man, I see nothing wrong with calling ourselves the *F* word, it’s only a word. It’s about context!

Yeah, right. This whole issue is about what people say in their homes or over a drink at a bar, with friends? It is NOT. Where is the threat behind the slur in that context? No where.

"Political correctness is counter-productive because it indiscriminately brands words off-limits."

No it doesn’t. Not unless we accept the rightwing idea that political correctness has gone too far, a neat trick the rightwing devised in the 1980's to make fun of liberals and the liberal movement.

We probably should have a thread dedicated to “PC” and where it came from, why and how it was corrupted and disparaged by the right wing.

Consider the words that are proscribed in modern usage and are equated to bigoted slurs. The common ones are all connected to groups who have suffered discrimination and they are proscribed for good reason.

To the contrary, words are not selected indiscriminately and branded words off-limits.

Words are pretty carefully selected for very real and obvious historical reasons.

To keep saying “but the oppressed group uses it in self reference and that makes it OK for non members of that oppressed group to use it” is silly, too.

I’m not so much interested in what people say in private, although that could be very revealing, because there is no threat arising from that usage from with in the oppressed group. Unless the next item to surface will be gays saying, we are not oppressed as gays? :eyes: Denial is a comforting defense mechanism.

I am interested in what society says as a reflection of prevailing attitudes and bigotry and how it reinforces those attitudes about bigotry.

“Political correctness is about HIDING differences, not celebrating them.”

Hiding differences? Seriously now.

How could GLBTQ people hide differences even if we wanted to?

Everyday is a reminder of how society sees us as different.

Every day that DOMA or DADT stand as the law of the land we are reminded about how we are supposedly different.

Every time a marriage equality resolution is struck down, we are reminded about how we are supposedly different.

We are cast as being “different” even as we fight so hard to be seen as “same” meaning as full human beings, but not identical cookie cutter, right wing fantasy of "what a real man and real woman" should be.

Sexual orientation slurs and stereotypes reinforce those differences in a pejorative, cynical, judgemental and disapproving way. They do not celebrate those differences. They make fun of them.Celebrating those differences is about educating people and society that it is OK for a man to be female identified, or for a female to be male identified, without ridicule or physical threats to beat them into conformity.

I am not suggesting we internalize the slurs. You seem to think that if we protest slurs we are accepting them, as if ignoring them makes them slurs powerless.

I see it as raising awareness. As do others who resent slurs based on ethnicity or religion or gender.

"You do not make progress by forcing people to pretend they believe others to be equal. You make progress by acknowledging that prejudice and educating it. That cannot be done by starting from a false assumption: that everyone agrees on what is correct. And that is basis of political correctness."

Actually, we make progress by demanding to be treated with respect.

If you let people walk all over you, if you don’t demand to be treated with respect, you will not get it.

No one is asking others to “pretend we are all equal.”
You think equality is a matter of pretending?

The first assumption is: that we are all equal.

We are equal. That is the first premise. Saying we are not equal is pretending.

That is not negotiable and it is not something that is conceded by the prevailing power structure easily, it is something we must state as being the first premise and true, no matter what bigots blather about to digress from this point.

I don’t see it as asking people to “please think of gays as equal,” I see it as a statement, “We are equal. To pretend otherwise is the lie.”

"You make progress by acknowledging that prejudice and educating it."

Yes, that is exactly what we are saying!

That is what those of use who find slurs offensive, counter productive and a reinforcement of bigotry are saying. Educating people about why slurs are a form of reinforcing prejudice is the whole point to objecting to slurs.

"That cannot be done by starting from a false assumption: that everyone agrees on what is correct. And that is basis of political correctness."

Holy smokes this is backwards. We are not waiting for consensus from others to determine what is bigotry, nor prermission to be considered as equal, we are calling it out and rejecting bigoted speech and we assert that we deserve respect and we assert that we are human beings who deserve equal rights.

Ignoring homophobic slurs is pretending, acting as if we were above repsondng to them is pretending.

Pretending that if we are gender appropriate masculine "butch" gay men and feminine "lipstick" lesbians, that those slurs are then unable to touch us and we are safe. Not very supportive to the entirety of the GLBTQ community and not particularly true. All it takes is for a gay man or woman to come out, and suddenly they will be seen as pansies or dykes, simply for being gay, and their personal style and presentation will be ignored right quick.

No one is starting with the assumption that everyone agrees on what is correct. To the contrary, the assumption is that gay slurs are not correct, dehumanizing, give permission to society at large to perpetuate stereo types, that they are indeed controversial, bigoted and that people are lying when they pretend that slurs about sexual orientation are not slurs aimed at gay people, that they are not toxic, that they are some “abstraction.”

Isn’t it just as easy to avoid hurtful, bigoted, toxic, stereotypical speech and to encourage civil speech and inoffensive language?

True, this is the internet, and while using the term pansy is just rude and hurtful here and no one is able to reach across ether space and grab us, it is worth fighting in this very public arena, especially since we are talking among fellow progressives who can then carry the message back to their own home communities and make some changes little by little, because, as you said, it is a matter of education.

I also see it as a matter of self respect and not settling for disrespect.

I also see it as being supportive of the entirety of the GLBTQ community on political principle even if I am at no risk for being called a "pansy," I hate to see good people, friends and fellow members of the GLBTQ community at large, having to endure such names.

[Toasterlad]

108. You Lost Me When You Passed Judgement On How My Friends And I Relate To Each Other.

Sorry you wasted your time with your very long post, which I'm sure was full of many interesting things, but I'm not very interested in the opinion of someone who feels free to determine what's appropriate to say between people who have known each other for years, but who he himself has never met.

If you don't get the concept of context, and if you were truly offended by the completely innocuous and clinical use of the word "fag" in my post, then you should refrain from interacting with people. Someone is bound to offend you with every other word. That's no way to live.

I know your heart's in the right place, blue, but censorship is not a progressive tool. And when you come right down to it, that's the only tactic that "political correctness" employs. You don't get to be a progressive AND an opponent of free speech. The world just doesn't work that way, sorry.

[bluedawg12]

110. Pearls of Wisdom: "How Not To Be a D**che - A Public Service Announcement (1)"

I guess I offended you.

I heard what I said, and it was no big deal. Nobody should be offended by that.
It didn't bother me.
I wasn’t offended, but I can see how you may have been.(1) :sarcasm:

You have passed judgment on people who disagree with you.

“As I've said repeatedly, if you're that thin-skinned, you have no business on the internet.. -toasterlad.”

“Here We Go Again With This Nonsense About WORDS
As with any "slur", it depends on the context. I really don't get why people have such a hard time with this concept. It's so fucking simple. -toasterlad.”


>>My friends and I call each other "fuck-face" and other horrible things all the time. That's how we roll. Since I know them, and know that their intention is to amuse, it doesn't bother me. In fact, I enjoy it very much. See? Context. toasterlad<<

You made it clear it doesn’t bother you on a personal level. I made it clear that it would bother me. This was my opinion, and I stated that it was a personal preference and a matter of personal taste:

>>What is the fascination of justifying hostile language, toxic language, in public and for that matter, in private? Just what the hell is so clever about calling friends: fuck face? I guess, this bit is just a matter of personal taste, because fuck faces are not a historically oppressed group.
But, calling friends fuck face, while beside the point, is still a form of hostile language. It almost makes me wonder about over compensation. -bluedawg12<<

That's my opinion. That's how I roll. It is also not censorship. We all get to pick the people we are friends with in real life and they suit our style and our comfort level..

>>If you don't get the concept of context, and if you were truly offended by the completely innocuous and clinical use of the word "fag" in my post, then you should refrain from interacting with people. Someone is bound to offend you with every other word. That's no way to live. -toasterlad<<

No one was offended by the “completely innocuous and clinical use” of the word "fag" in your last post.

>>If you don't get the concept of context, and if you were truly offended by the completely innocuous and clinical use of the word "fag" in my post... toasterlad<<

That is opposite of what I said:

>>Let’s make a distinction between private use and public use, your concept of “context,” instead of making it seem like pointless censorship.

If gay men use the “F” word among themselves and with friends, of course that’s context neutral. Where’s the threat? Is there any chance one will suddenly burst forth, go bonkers and start yelling, “Im going to kill you, you f*cking F**?”

On the other hand, if a gay man walks out of a bar at night alone and three young males approach him and start shouting, “You f*cking F**,” those words convey a threat borne of an attitude. -bluedawg12<<

People here, gay men and women, have said slurs about sexual orientation are offensive. They ask supportive people not to use those terms. I don’t get why it is so hard to respect that?

If none of the minority groups to which you belong subject you to actual prejudice, pain, or danger every day of your life, you might be understandably clueless about what other minorities consider offensive.

You might also be wondering how your right to free speech ties in to a meaningful dialog on minority issues.

The following example is provided as a baseline for how to discuss sensitive matters in a non-douche manner, even though you do not belong to the minority currently under discussion.

Remember, this is only an example. These techniques can be applied to ANY discussion of ANY minority issue.

Your President appears on national television and makes a non-PC remark about
gays, he calls someone a pansy or F*g.

The next day, there is an outcry on DU gays. While you are neither gay nor personally affected by homophobia, you believe that your President meant no actual harm and that his remark wasn't a big deal. You respond thusly:

A. He didn't mean it, you whiny cry babies! Quit being such drama queens!

B. I heard what he said, and it was no big deal. Nobody should be offended by that.

C. It didn't bother me.

D. Wasn't offended, but I can see how others may have been.

E. Rush Limbaugh was offended, therefore anyone who was offended is a Republican ass-licker!

F. (You remain silent on the issue, knowing that you don't have the right to tell other people how to feel, and aware of the fact that what was said didn't offend you because it didn't directly impact you).

And the results:

A: You are an un-empathetic douche, posting either because you crave attention or because you're generally an asshole. Or both.

B: are exhibiting douchey behavior, and are apparently unable to separate your own feelings from the feelings of others.

C. are exhibiting quasi-douche behavior, in that your post could be taken to infer that it shouldn't bother anyone. You can avoid coming off like a douche by qualifying your statement, as in answer D.

D. are declaring your opinion, while at the same time acknowledging that others may have a valid reason for disagreeing with you. This is excellent non-douche behavior.

E. You're an idiot.

F. You are very, very wise.

...........

The above example came from your Journal toasterlad. The only thing I changed was the set up, you were writing about people with disabilities and I inserted gays.

That, at the time, was the outcry, that the President made a mild but “Un-PC” statement about people with disabilities on Jay Leno.

You were all over them for defending the President’s remarks and gave this advice in your Journal.

If you want to be consistent then, your advice should apply to any minorities and how to
“how to discuss sensitive matters in a non-douche manner.”

How Not To Be a Douche - A Public Service Announcement
Posted by Toasterlad in General Discussion
Sun Mar 22nd 2009, 05:49 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5306458&mesg_id=5306458

...........

[Toasterlad]

113. Are You Trying To Say I Contradicted Myself? Sorry, I Don't See It.

Yes, I WAS offended by your uninformed condemnation of how I relate to my friends. But it wasn't your words that offended me. It was the message you used them to convey that offended me.

I understand why people are offended by words. What I find silly and childish is assigning weight to particular words and declaring them "bad"...as if making those words off-limits will remove the hate behind them. It doesn't work that way.

If you weren't offended by my use of the word "fag", then what were you bitching about?

I get the feeling we're talking in circles here. I'm sorry that I'm apparently incapable of communicating my meaning to you, but I've spelled it out as clearly as I can. My opinion hasn't changed: Words are merely tools to express feelings, and are not, in and of themselves, hurtful. Context is the determination of how a word should be received.

And that's my last word on the subject.

[bluedawg12]

115. I have only one thing to say on this and then I am done.

"Yes, I WAS offended by your uninformed condemnation of how I relate to my friends.- toasterlad"

I apologize for offending you. I was out of line in discussing your friends. You are correct on that.
I should have apologized sooner.

We have covered the rest ad post nauseum.

peace
bd12

[Toasterlad]

117. Your Apology is Accepted. Thank You.

[Zuiderelle]

111. I'm going to guess that you have no clue what it was like to be gay 25 years ago. I doubt you were

even alive. I really don't get why some people have such a hard time with the concept of understanding history and how words were (and continue to be) used to oppress and dehumanize. It's so fucking simple.

(Ironically, it's your extreme condescending method of argument here that belies your lack of life experience.)

[Toasterlad]

112. I'm 45. I've Been Gay For 45 Years.

Sorry you found my post condescending. That was not my intention. But I understand history very well. I also understand the English language very well...I've studied it all my life. I have tremendous respect for the power of words as a means of conveying ideas. But that is all they are...a means to an end. As you said, "words were (and continue to be) USED to oppress and dehumanize."

Words are tools. Tools are not "bad". It's the meaning behind the words that's oppressive or dehumanizing.

[Zuiderelle]

114. I didn't find the one post condescending, but rather the collection of responses from you.

Back to the subject though, when the meaning behind certain words has always been to oppress and dehumanize (except when used by the objects of such words on themselves, in an effort to claim them back), then the words themselves become unacceptable. Not that they are "bad" in and of themselves, of course they are not. It's not bad for me to call myself a dyke, the word "dyke" is not bad, but it sure as hell is unacceptable for you, as a stranger, to call me that. And it certainly is unacceptable for me to call a black person a derisive word that has always been used with hateful meaning.

You have a good handle on words and how to string them together. You seem intelligent, and I've agreed with some of your posts on other matters. But on this subject, your arguments don't hold water. Words are tools, yes, but we as respectful and progressive people should use those tools in a responsible manner. And we should respect our fellow humans who have suffered at the hand of people who have used those tools in oppressive and hateful ways.

Seems simple enough to me to admit that a word is usually used in a certain way, for a certain effect. I don't understand your need to argue the way you do. Reminds me of gun lovers who argue that guns don't kill people, as an objection to gun control. Well, how, without gun control, can we possibly hope to prevent people from using guns to kill people? And how, without education about how words can harm people, can we possible hope to prevent people from harming people with words? Words used with hateful intent DO hurt. Just look at the problem of teen suicide from bullying for proof of that.

[Toasterlad]

116. "Words used with hateful intent DO hurt."

That is my argument in a nutshell. It is the INTENT that is hateful, not the word. Yes, there are words that have historically been used for hateful purposes. That does not mean that those words cannot be used to express other ideas, and I very much resent it when an intellectually lazy and/or politically simple person latches on to a particular objectionable word and ignores the context in which the word was used.

There are brilliant plays, films, and other works that make liberal use of "slurs", and there are zealous assholes who object to those works purely on the grounds that the words are "bad". See the Huck Finn example used previously.

It seems that you and blue believe that I'm arguing that people should be allowed to say whatever they want and not be critized for it. That is not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the context of the words used is ALWAYS more important than the words themselves. When Fred Phelps says, "God hates fags", that is CLEARY hateful, as it was clearly INTENDED to be. That cannot be equated with two friends bantering back and forth, or an activist using strong language to make a forceful point. When the straight character Mark in the musical Rent sings "to faggots, lezzies, dykes, cross-dressers too", he is quite literally celebrating the diversity of life. It is a beautiful moment in tremendously affirmative song...and there are no doubt people who missed the joy completely because they can't get past the "slurs". That's fucking SAD.

CONTEXT.

And that REALLY IS my last word on this subject.

[Prism]

90. There are too many contexts for there to be any satisfying consensus

There are a few contexts and meanings. Among them -

- Homosexuals. Although this use is somewhat aged. Generally I find people using it as a synonym for faggot to be older and from certain parts of the country. It's always odd to my midwestern ear.

- Effeminate weakness. Where the homophobic meets the mysogynistic. Walking like a girl, throwing like a girl, etc. Pretty straightforward.

- Anything non-masculine. There is a useage where the word simply denotes a lack of masculinity without any connotations of homosexuality of effeminacy. For instance, a lack of bravery (usually when being goaded into doing something alarmingly stupid). A lack of willpower. A lack of perceived toughness. It's a word meant to taunt but also "toughen" boys. Although others might disagree, this usage does seem to stand apart from any pointed mysogyny or homophobia. Rather than anti-gay or anti-woman, it's kind of a pro-male in the most stereotypical sense.

At the end of the day, it's like tar baby. While there are legitimate uses of the term that don't connotate bigoted intent. enough people are bothered by it to warrant just avoiding it altogether unless you want to deal with the fall out.

Meh, I'm not bothered. But I call things gay all the time. Which offline doesn't seem to bother anyone in my social circle. Online, all things bother all people all the time, though. So, you know, I go with it.

[xchrom]

92. it's a slur -- and a sexual slur -- imho.

it's about masculine dominance and masculine submissiveness.

and how those who are perceived as submissive.

[bluedawg12]

101. It's a gay slur against effeminate men, when used in public.

Further proof, no one would call a woman a pansy. Right? Because there is no insult in calling a woman a woman, on the other hand, a Drill Sargent may say to the recruits, "You're a bunch of women. You pansies," in order to insult them.

The intent is clear.

This gaff may be of interest to some:
..........
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/29/clinton-north-carolina-su_n_99191.html
Did North Carolina Governor Use Gay Slur In Front Of Clinton?
John Ararvosis
April 29, 2008


Pansy? Standing next to Clinton, her top surrogate in North Carolina actually used the word "pansy" this morning.

After touring a bio-manufacturing training center, Gov. Easley, First Lady of North Carolina Mary Easley and Clinton held a ceremony at NC State University. The Governor formally expressed his support saying that there was "nothing I love more than a strong powerful woman." Easley concluded his remarks saying Clinton -- "makes Rocky Balboa look like a pansy".

In case anyone has been living under a rock, pansy is slang for "fag."

Read the whole story here.
.........

[xchrom]

105. indeed. nt

[sui generis]

94. associated with "weak" more than gay

Anyway, you nailed it sorta -

Most of the spite and malice directed towards us regardless of the word used is because they fear weakness in themselves.

If you align yourself with the stronger team (at least by claiming the other team is weak) then you're somehow justified. I guess I'll just have to quote eddie murphy yet again: "Let me tell ya . . . 'ts some 'barrassin' shit get yo ass beat by a faggot!"

Snork. Isn't it, though.

:hi:

[davidinalameda]

102. people on here say a lot of stupid crap

and yes, pansy is a slur

[PeaceNikki]

109. I think that any slur that attacks one for acting outside the confines of their gender roles

sucks.

Like how "bitch" is used when women are assertive or aggressive, or when men are passive or servile.