Last edited Fri Feb 10, 2012, 11:02 AM - Edit history (1)
I have read on DU that words can't hurt you unless you let them.
This reasoning assumes we all have great control over our emotions. Consider the following extreme example: The death of your children can't hurt you unless you let it.
We are interconnected beings, and we have emotions. The reasoning denies these facts.
I feel like I am missing a really good rebuttal here. I am going to think about it some more.
I have read on DU that people have free speech, and that feminists are trying to infringe on that right.
Free speech is about government restrictions on its citizens. If I stand in a store and yell, "fuck my armpit," over and over, I will be asked to leave. If I don't leave, the police will be summoned to remove me for trespassing.
I have read on DU that feminists who point out sexist speech are "pearl clutchers" are "getting the vapors" and "need a fainting couch".
They can't argue against your point, so they argue against you instead. Extremely immature argumentation tactic in my opinion. Some people just can't admit when they are wrong, so they throw a tantrum instead.
I have read on DU that pointing out the use of this sexist language is detrimental to feminism, essentially minimizing more pervasive forms of sexism.
Why? Because sexist people will be offended? For this one, I may try to get the poster to specifically state why they think this, and then ask them if the reason applies to them. Should our arguments be for some mythical, unknown audience?
Offer specifics, and expect specifics in return.
= new reply since forum marked as read