Slog
News & ArtsSunday, March 25, 2012
Religion Slog Bible Study: Exodus 22:18
Posted by Goldy on Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 7:00 AM
Discuss.Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
1
Passive-aggressive gawd... It hates witches and wants 'em all to just die already, but just couldn't bring itself to say to kill 'em.
3
Honestly, I've got nothing. This verse is pretty damned direct. In other translations it says a sorceress or one who uses incantations to perform magic, but the point remains the same: kill anyone who performs magic in your community.
I guess this is another law that was designed to reinforce the Hebrew culture as distinct and better than the cultures around it at the time. Where other cultures allowed mystics and witches to exist as conduits to power for normal citizens, the Hebrew culture wanted the only conduit of power to be God's appointed leaders and the priests.
You could also see that because it specifically calls out female practitioners that it is working to reinforce the patriarchal social structure where only men had a direct access to mystical power.
So, all in all, this law is about cultural dominance over foreign ideas and women.
I'm not seeing any silver lining at all.
I guess this is another law that was designed to reinforce the Hebrew culture as distinct and better than the cultures around it at the time. Where other cultures allowed mystics and witches to exist as conduits to power for normal citizens, the Hebrew culture wanted the only conduit of power to be God's appointed leaders and the priests.
You could also see that because it specifically calls out female practitioners that it is working to reinforce the patriarchal social structure where only men had a direct access to mystical power.
So, all in all, this law is about cultural dominance over foreign ideas and women.
I'm not seeing any silver lining at all.
6
@4 I've heard that, but most of the scholarly work I could find traces that back only to the Septuagint (the Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible), whereas in all of the original language iterations the word does mean a spell caster.
Here's a blog post that goes into the language difference a bit... it also talks about other stuff, but c'est la vie. http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/2009/02/…
Here's a blog post that goes into the language difference a bit... it also talks about other stuff, but c'est la vie. http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/2009/02/…
7
So what kind of "witchcraft" was being practiced back then? Anyone have any historical descriptions of the activities and beliefs of k'shaphim? (Which is "jewish magic"? what?)
8
#7 the kind practiced was "Black Magic". That's the worst kind don't cha know. Pointy hats, black cats, steaming pots, and all the rest. Like the little kids enjoy dressing up as at Halloween. Time to stone some children, which is okay by the Bible too.
9
I assume all that walking on water, dividing the red sea, turning stuff into wine and fishies, visions all around, the regular curing of blind and leppards and other party tricks doesn't count as sorcery huh...
"No, when I do it its the work of god"
its al just about taking out the competition...
"No, when I do it its the work of god"
its al just about taking out the competition...
10
Make up your fucking mind. Is it "Thou shalt not kill" or just kill everyone you disagree with. You're cornfusing your stupid followers.
11
What 3 said. The Torah was written by the priests of the Jerusalem Temple, and they did not want any competition in the mysticism/sacrifice business. The whole thing is an elaborate justification for the Aaronid priests' violent suppression of their competitors, so that they could enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.
12
Throughout history, midwives and women who were aware of the uses of plants and herbs to heal were considered witches. The idea that a stupid worthless woman could help someone where a man could not was considered witchcraft - how could willow bark help anything? It must have been evil magic power.
13
Historically, the translation of the sentence as "witch" instead of "poisoner" has been attributed to King James when he ordered the "translation" of the Bible into standard English.
Seems that James was a wee bit paranoid.
Seems that James was a wee bit paranoid.
15
@13 Yeah, James had a thing about witches. I read somewhere that Shakespeare put the witches in Macbeth because he knew James would appreciate a play about Scotland and witches.
17
Either you extend it to mean the idea of someone who has given themselves over to evil and is actively harming other people in concrete and specific way - say serial killing blood sacrifices, terror bombings, and so on, or you relegate it to the sort of historical reject pile that eating shellfish and touching pigs has been relegated to.
Because, unless they've got exceptionally good PR, this isn't the sort of things that Wiccans get up to, and they deserve to be left alone to do it with the same freedom everyone else has.
Seriously, it's not as if they are doing public rituals praying to a divine being to change wine into blood and enacting ritual cannibal rites or something.
Because, unless they've got exceptionally good PR, this isn't the sort of things that Wiccans get up to, and they deserve to be left alone to do it with the same freedom everyone else has.
Seriously, it's not as if they are doing public rituals praying to a divine being to change wine into blood and enacting ritual cannibal rites or something.
18
#16 - only if you really dig misogynistic insults, I guess. FFS if you have serious complaints about Palin, you don't need to harp on about her gender.
21
Maybe my memory fails me, but I cannot remember that at any point in the Old Testament, any non-Yahweh magic is being performed successfully. I think Pharaoh had a magician, but he doesn't do shit. One prophet who's name I forget has a magic duel with a group of warlocks, but they turned out to be more illusionists.
So in-story, what the fuck are they afraid of? That's bad writing. It's as if the Dark Side in Star Wars was even unable to light up a light saber.
So in-story, what the fuck are they afraid of? That's bad writing. It's as if the Dark Side in Star Wars was even unable to light up a light saber.
22
18 And how exactly is my remark either gendered or misgynist? I never mentioned her gender. Methinks thou dost project too much.
25
The original: either 'thou shalt not suffuse a sandwich with olives' or 'thou shalt not suffuse a sandwich with liver'.
Wars were fought over the distinction.
Wars were fought over the distinction.
26
#22 - uh, because it is? I mean, why would you be even mentioning Palin (and why is #20 mentioning Gregoire?) if not to use 'witch' as a gendered insult? Why did you mention Palin instead of male religious freaks like Santorum or Bush?
It's like ~randomly~ mentioning Obama in a thread about a racial stereotype. We can all hear that dogwhistle. It's not witty, it's just you being a turd.
I hate, hate, hate, when idiot misogynists on liberal sites put me in the position of defending Sarah Palin because if I don't, me and every other politically active woman is going to keep on getting called a 'witch', 'harpy', 'bitch', etc by jackholes like you and #22.
It's like ~randomly~ mentioning Obama in a thread about a racial stereotype. We can all hear that dogwhistle. It's not witty, it's just you being a turd.
I hate, hate, hate, when idiot misogynists on liberal sites put me in the position of defending Sarah Palin because if I don't, me and every other politically active woman is going to keep on getting called a 'witch', 'harpy', 'bitch', etc by jackholes like you and #22.
29
@28 Christine O'Donnell actually has a concrete reason to be associated with witches outside of the fact that she's politically repulsive, so yes. Sarah Palin - no. That just reinforced the liberal tendency to attack her based not upon her political ideas, her hypocrisy, etc, but upon her gender. She's a conservative WOMAN - cue attacks as a witch, bitch, slut, whore for the right, and so forth.
Like thene, I am irritated by liberals who haaaaate how anti-woman Palin's ideas are, and to "get back" at her, they make her the butt (har) of sexual jokes. Because who can take a slut seriously, amirite? When someone is beautiful and stupid, why, they jokes just write themselves! Plus who wouldn't want to hit that. This is totally fucked up and not feminist at all (not that liberals are necessarily feminist, but some people I know who make these jokes claim to be).
Like thene, I am irritated by liberals who haaaaate how anti-woman Palin's ideas are, and to "get back" at her, they make her the butt (har) of sexual jokes. Because who can take a slut seriously, amirite? When someone is beautiful and stupid, why, they jokes just write themselves! Plus who wouldn't want to hit that. This is totally fucked up and not feminist at all (not that liberals are necessarily feminist, but some people I know who make these jokes claim to be).
30
I think the witch reference is pretty much an unbeliever in the big kahuna, or worships a false diety in the eyes of Yahweh, or the angry sheepherders who wrote the Old Testament.
31
Robert Heinlein said that the original translates better as 'poisoner'. That's how I've always read it since.
33
@ 26, you put yourself in that position. You could just as easily ignore it, instead of fitting the stereotype of the humorless, PC über alles liberal finger wagger.
35
@31: My understanding is that the Hebrew more directly translates to female sorcerer, but the Greek more directly translates to poisoner. Since this part of the Bible was originally a Hebrew text, I'm going with that... as do the most commonly read Bibles.
That said, I've always found it interesting when folks defend the Bible, blaming a particularly troublesome passage on a "bad translation." Since most Christians read it in the vernacular, aren't their lives being guided by what their Bible says it says, rather than what it might really say? Whatever the original intent of Exodus 22:18, hundreds of millions of Christians are being taught that the punishment for witchcraft is death. That's what their Bible tells them.
That said, I've always found it interesting when folks defend the Bible, blaming a particularly troublesome passage on a "bad translation." Since most Christians read it in the vernacular, aren't their lives being guided by what their Bible says it says, rather than what it might really say? Whatever the original intent of Exodus 22:18, hundreds of millions of Christians are being taught that the punishment for witchcraft is death. That's what their Bible tells them.
40
#38, according to someone who doesn't wear "panties," of course.
As long as the gendered insults aren't at the expense of your gender, they're just silly, according to you.
Please go fuck yourself.
As long as the gendered insults aren't at the expense of your gender, they're just silly, according to you.
Please go fuck yourself.
41
@thene and @sahara29 I do wish you would harp on an anti-general-name-calling campaign. Slurs are gender specific sure, but they're about as misogynistic as calling a guy a 'dick' or 'asshole' or 'jerk' is misandrist. Would you defend men who get called 'total wankers' or 'jerk-offs'? Probably not.
/threadjack
/threadjack
42
@35: Well, at my Hebrew school, I was taught that the Torah was mostly allegory and mythology, with a bit of actual ancient history mixed in.
43
The fact that gendered insults seem to have more profound effect is fact enough to continue to use them. Please go be fat somewhere else.
44
42
it's bad when you talk to yourself but worse when you answer.
perhaps the syphilis has reached your brain.....
it's bad when you talk to yourself but worse when you answer.
perhaps the syphilis has reached your brain.....
46
Such hostility! As far as I'm concerned, you are welcome to use any male-gendered insult you want - douche bag, prick, asshole, misogynist,...
And you know you want to!
And you know you want to!
47
Saraha29 and Thene are right. If the insult isn’t inherently gendered than why chose Palin, who isn’t even a candidate at this point? Why not Santorum? His world view is motivated by magical thinking at the very least, so a parallel would have been possible there. And if there was any doubt that gender wasn’t a component, Daddy Love disabused us of that idea in his next post in which he invoked his dick.
@33: Why Matt? Why should we ignore it? Because it makes you uncomfortable? You disappoint me. I expect that line from Bro-gressvies like Seandr, who is only as liberal as doesn’t interfere with his perceived god given right to get laid, or TheMisanthrope with whom I went over 100 comments regarding his delusions on the topic of sexual assault. But not from you.
@39 and 43: Central Scrutinizer, you disappoint me as well. Call a woman fat. Why? What does that have to do with her statement? How does that serve as an argument in favor of gendered insults? Do you have a cogent argument to support the use of gendered insults against women? Setting aside “but it’s fuuuuuunny” of course.
As a left leaning woman, I hold liberal men to a higher standard than I do the men on the right, because I expect to be included in your world view regarding social justice. I expect you to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. That you don’t always manage, well nobody is perfect, but I’m going to call you on it, because ignoring it only reinforces the idea that that behavior is ok.
And it is not. A little insult here, a gendered assumption there, a focus on appearance rather than policy when discussing a female politician….It all adds up. And now, more than ever, considering the gloves off war on women the right is waging, we need to stand together.
I believe you to be better men. So do better.
More...
@33: Why Matt? Why should we ignore it? Because it makes you uncomfortable? You disappoint me. I expect that line from Bro-gressvies like Seandr, who is only as liberal as doesn’t interfere with his perceived god given right to get laid, or TheMisanthrope with whom I went over 100 comments regarding his delusions on the topic of sexual assault. But not from you.
@39 and 43: Central Scrutinizer, you disappoint me as well. Call a woman fat. Why? What does that have to do with her statement? How does that serve as an argument in favor of gendered insults? Do you have a cogent argument to support the use of gendered insults against women? Setting aside “but it’s fuuuuuunny” of course.
As a left leaning woman, I hold liberal men to a higher standard than I do the men on the right, because I expect to be included in your world view regarding social justice. I expect you to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. That you don’t always manage, well nobody is perfect, but I’m going to call you on it, because ignoring it only reinforces the idea that that behavior is ok.
And it is not. A little insult here, a gendered assumption there, a focus on appearance rather than policy when discussing a female politician….It all adds up. And now, more than ever, considering the gloves off war on women the right is waging, we need to stand together.
I believe you to be better men. So do better.
48
@21, there was the bit with King Saul and the witch of Endor raising Samuel's ghost (Samuel 28), but agreed; pretty weak tea.
49
@ 47, I wasn't defending it. It was a dumb comment, and you'll never, ever catch me using that kind of language.
But context matters - a throwaway remark made on SLOG, which has now gotten way more acknowledgment than it deserves, which was none. Still, compare that to Rush's three days of hate. Is the comment about Palin really as bad?
One thing we on the left excel at is shooting ourselves in the foot, insisting on ideological purity and dividing ourselves for easy conquest by the right. Very little is gained from turning your ire on your allies. Whoever said it (not gonna bother looking back to see who) isn't trying to take away your rights. Anger is best directed at those who are. Action matters, not talk.
But context matters - a throwaway remark made on SLOG, which has now gotten way more acknowledgment than it deserves, which was none. Still, compare that to Rush's three days of hate. Is the comment about Palin really as bad?
One thing we on the left excel at is shooting ourselves in the foot, insisting on ideological purity and dividing ourselves for easy conquest by the right. Very little is gained from turning your ire on your allies. Whoever said it (not gonna bother looking back to see who) isn't trying to take away your rights. Anger is best directed at those who are. Action matters, not talk.
50
@Lissa - The hostile, overbearing, high-horse feminism on display here only alienates people.
You can do better.
You can do better.
52
@50 - are you saying that if we tolerate sexist jokes, men will stop making them? Or that sexist jokes aren't a problem, because they're not a problem for you? Does that go for homophobic and racist jokes too, or is it just funny to laugh at women?
53
I agree with you Matt, in the main, but as I said, those little things all add up. I am not turning my ire on my allies, I am asking my allies to live up to their own standards. You won't always, the standard is pretty high, but letting things slide by won't help any of us live up to those goals.
And I ask you, if Daddy Love's first comment was just a pointless little throwaway remark, then why make it all? Each instance of this sort that goes unchallenged reinforces the idea that that sort of thinking is ok. Individually they seem harmless. In aggregate they are not.
And I ask you, if Daddy Love's first comment was just a pointless little throwaway remark, then why make it all? Each instance of this sort that goes unchallenged reinforces the idea that that sort of thinking is ok. Individually they seem harmless. In aggregate they are not.
54
@16 Wouldn't it make more sense to call Christine O'Donnell a witch? In her case we do have a video taped confession.
55
@52: Indeed EricaP that is a fair question and one I hope Seandr considers deeply before he answers it.
@50: It is not hostile to expect you to show the same consideration to your female allies as you would your gay allies of allies of color.
@50: It is not hostile to expect you to show the same consideration to your female allies as you would your gay allies of allies of color.
57
@ 50, ever the charmer. How do women resist?
@ 53, you'll have to ask Daddylove about his remark. (You may have meant that rhetorically, but just in case...) Also, If your standards are so high that everyone will fail them, it might be time to bring them down just a bit. We're only human.
@ 53, you'll have to ask Daddylove about his remark. (You may have meant that rhetorically, but just in case...) Also, If your standards are so high that everyone will fail them, it might be time to bring them down just a bit. We're only human.
58
@57: No Matt, that's what I'm saying. I know the standard is high, and that as the nuns used to say to me, we all fall short of the glory of god, but that doesn't mean we don't keep trying. In the past racist jokes, or homophobic jokes, were given a pass and now they are not. Someday, I hope the same will be said of sexist jokes as well. Calling people out will make that day come sooner. Not calling people of good will to account allows an atmosphere in which people like Seandr can continue, well, being like Seandr. A Bro-gressive rather than a progressive. If we don't keep pointing out that sexism is not ok he's going to continue to think that it is.
59
@57, When someone falls short, we don't shoot them. Or imprison them. Or refuse to date them. Or bring it up every day for a month.
We just state that we don't like it. That's the online equivalent of standing there not laughing when someone tells an offensive joke. In person, you can see me standing and not laughing, and you understand that I'm a bit irritated. Online, some woman has to step up and say it. (Thanks, thene@18) Or the joker and others will think everyone was laughing.
We just state that we don't like it. That's the online equivalent of standing there not laughing when someone tells an offensive joke. In person, you can see me standing and not laughing, and you understand that I'm a bit irritated. Online, some woman has to step up and say it. (Thanks, thene@18) Or the joker and others will think everyone was laughing.
60
Erica, as if you've never made a misandrist remark in your life, calling somebody a pig, dick, asshole, cock, etc. If you say that you've never, ever, made a joke about a guy, or slammed a dude with a slur, that specified his gender, I would be inclined to call you a liar.
In other words, women do it too, and you know it.
In other words, women do it too, and you know it.
61
@60 I make plenty of mistakes. Indeed, I was wrong right above @59: it doesn't have to be a woman who speaks out against sexist jokes -- it's great when a guy steps up to point out the issue.
62
@60: Then this is your opportunity to instead of using the bad behavior of others as an excuse, which is of course, what children do, to be an adult and lead by example.
Be better. Do better.
Be better. Do better.
64
@ 58, I would agree that seandr is taking it to the calling-out level.
@ 59, you were stating that you didn't like it. The person I first addressed was being a scold, which was why I jumped in. Your comments (and Lissa's) are much more reasonable and would not have prompted me to say anything. (I only give my agreement if I also have something to add - I don't like dogpiles, which are pretty frequent here.)
@ 59, you were stating that you didn't like it. The person I first addressed was being a scold, which was why I jumped in. Your comments (and Lissa's) are much more reasonable and would not have prompted me to say anything. (I only give my agreement if I also have something to add - I don't like dogpiles, which are pretty frequent here.)
65
@62 Translated: "Men, you have to take the high road while women can do whatever they want."
You just articulated everything that's wrong with modern feminism. Modern feminism = victim hood. Thank you for reiterating that fact.
You just articulated everything that's wrong with modern feminism. Modern feminism = victim hood. Thank you for reiterating that fact.
66
@61 As such, it's completely unfair to call somebody out for making a mildly sexist throwaway crack when you've probably said worse. Next time you call someone a dick or an asshole, even in your head, think about the sexism that pervades your thoughts before you condemn other people's.
Also, it WAS a mildly sexist throwaway crack. But, it wasn't one should pitch a fit over. And, it's not like men can be called witches. Just as women can't be called warlocks, which doesn't rhyme easily with a male slur so it hasn't been used as a PG-version of one, unlike witch.
Also, it WAS a mildly sexist throwaway crack. But, it wasn't one should pitch a fit over. And, it's not like men can be called witches. Just as women can't be called warlocks, which doesn't rhyme easily with a male slur so it hasn't been used as a PG-version of one, unlike witch.
67
@65: Your reading comprehension is remarkably poor. And I see you are falling back on putting words in the mouths of others. You may recall how badly that worked out for you the last time you and I tangled.
"They do it too!" is an argument used by a child, and you are the only one using it. No woman here has done the same.
If you consider yourself progressive and believe in social justice, then act like it.
"They do it too!" is an argument used by a child, and you are the only one using it. No woman here has done the same.
If you consider yourself progressive and believe in social justice, then act like it.
69
@67 Yeah, I remember. You don't know what you're actually saying and started accusing me of stereotypes. Are you still a homophobe?
71
@70 And, that's where we ended up last time. You got backed into a wall and then resorted to stereotyping and name calling instead of any actual meaningful discourse.
73
@71: If that's how you need to remember things, I'm sure every one here will understand, but I'm afraid the evidence does not support your version of events.
Now, as I said, if you consider yourelf a progressive and believe in social justice, act like it.
Now, as I said, if you consider yourelf a progressive and believe in social justice, act like it.
74
@72 Oh, she's full of prejudices and self-delusions. You should read her sometimes.
@73 Again with the accusatory fluff. Content! I cannot stress this enough. If you're going to type something, at least say something smart.
I was engaging with you first before you decided to go off on this inane little tangent as you so oft like to do. Would you like to continue trolling this thread, or actually engage in a meaningful way on how you think it's totally acceptable for women to call men misandrist names, but men should have to stand tall and avoid sexist misogynistic jokes?
@73 Again with the accusatory fluff. Content! I cannot stress this enough. If you're going to type something, at least say something smart.
I was engaging with you first before you decided to go off on this inane little tangent as you so oft like to do. Would you like to continue trolling this thread, or actually engage in a meaningful way on how you think it's totally acceptable for women to call men misandrist names, but men should have to stand tall and avoid sexist misogynistic jokes?
75
@74: Since I have never said that, I'm afraid I can't. If you go back and re read this thread, you will find that you, and you alone, have made that argument. You are fighting with the voices in your own head, not me, or any other woman here.
@72: Thank you Ken
@72: Thank you Ken
76
@75 The basic tenet here has been that calling a woman a witch, or a bitch is inherently sexist and misogynistic regardless of that woman's behavior (Sarah Palin would definitely qualify for more than a few of her actions), simply on the basis that it's a gender-specific insult. I challenged that by asking if you have ever made a gender-specific (read: misandrist) comment against a male or defended against such a comment. your response was that men should take the high road and not look use other's behaviors as an excuse. The flip side (tacit side) of that statement was that, it is totally ok for men to be called dicks, pricks, or others but anything gender-specific against women is completely unacceptable.
At least Erica said she makes mistakes.
At least Erica said she makes mistakes.
77
Again you fall prey to your old weakness for putting words in the mouths of others. What I said was, and I quote:
Then this is your opportunity to instead of using the bad behavior of others as an excuse, which is of course, what children do, to be an adult and lead by example.
and
"They do it too!" is an argument used by a child, and you are the only one using it. No woman here has done the same.
I have never, claimed that the bad behavior of others excuses bad behavior on my part. And certainly not in this context. You are the. only. one. who has sought to excuse the use of gendered insults on the grounds that "other people do it too". I have not done so, and no other woman here has done so.
At least Erica said she makes mistakes.
And you could certainly learn from her example.
Then this is your opportunity to instead of using the bad behavior of others as an excuse, which is of course, what children do, to be an adult and lead by example.
and
"They do it too!" is an argument used by a child, and you are the only one using it. No woman here has done the same.
I have never, claimed that the bad behavior of others excuses bad behavior on my part. And certainly not in this context. You are the. only. one. who has sought to excuse the use of gendered insults on the grounds that "other people do it too". I have not done so, and no other woman here has done so.
At least Erica said she makes mistakes.
And you could certainly learn from her example.
78
Did I say tacit? Did you not read that statement?
I made a specific argument and you addressed it by not addressing it. Since you dont see your own logic, lets start from the beginning...
Have you ever called, or do you defend, men against being called misandric, gender-specific, slurs?
I made a specific argument and you addressed it by not addressing it. Since you dont see your own logic, lets start from the beginning...
Have you ever called, or do you defend, men against being called misandric, gender-specific, slurs?
84
@81 Yay reading comprehension. Either or...fuck it. I am done dealing with somebody so intentionally, and willfully idiotic.
86
I forgot to compliment you on the fact that one of the ponies is a witch. Truly, you have made my morning.
87
TheMisanthrope's comprehension formula: A feminist asserts a position and then explains the reasoning/presents evidence. (Sometimes the feminist gets a little ranty, but whatevs - so does everyone on the internet.) TheMisanthrope then carefully avoids the actual argument raised and instead wildly accuses the feminist of various prejudices/gaps in reasoning.
Whatever lifts your luggage, dude! 63 has it right, btw.
Whatever lifts your luggage, dude! 63 has it right, btw.
88
Also, at the risk of paying an inappropriately gendered compliment (see what I did there? I'm making fun of feminist pretentiousness!), my hat's off to Lissa for taking some heat and ending it with ponies. Well done indeed.
89
Personally, I think gender specific compliments /insults/epithets to some extent appropriate because men and women are different. For example, TheMisanthrope could accurately described as 'dickish'.
90
@88: I owe it all to Venomlash :)
@ 89: personally I would go with "asshole", since it is certainly apt in this case, and has the added benefit of being gender neutral. :)
@ 89: personally I would go with "asshole", since it is certainly apt in this case, and has the added benefit of being gender neutral. :)
92
@87 Actually, I present gaps in reason because the actual argument is fallacious in logic. If the argument presented, "women should not be called female-oriented slurs because it is degrading to women" has a mirror image, "men should not be called male-oriented slurs because it is degrading to men" that is not addressed, my question is, "why isn't it?" Feminism, as I've understood it, has always been about equal rights. And, if men can get called "dickish" and "assholes" and "pricks" (which, I believe we totally can), women can get called "bitches" and "harpies" if that's what actually applies. So, in other words, get off your high horse and actually let a joke be a joke.
93
@91 I believe feminists have been trying to reclaim "asshole" to make it a gender-neutral slur; I would think that you'd approve of that approach. Yes, words have a history, but they can also be repurposed for positive political goals.
94
Can your knowledge of basic anatomy be so poor as to render you unaware that the orifice in question is possessed by both sexes? Which precludes it being ( although certainly vulgar) a gendered insult?
Tell you what, why don't you make a list of what you consider to be sexist insults and run it by that Imaginary Feminist Frenemy of yours. Being your construct, I'm sure she will provide you with what ever response tickles your outrage most.
Tell you what, why don't you make a list of what you consider to be sexist insults and run it by that Imaginary Feminist Frenemy of yours. Being your construct, I'm sure she will provide you with what ever response tickles your outrage most.
96
@92 because: history. Though feel free to call me a bitch: http://www.winedivashop.com/PhotoGallery…
98
Is the irony of a protracted argument meant to appeal to the better nature of a person with the handle "The Misanthrope" completely lost on all of you?
99
Funny how some of the major "men of god" in the bible were magical practitioners (including Moses, Solomon, and even Jesus himself). And the first two "gained favor with the lord". The other claimed to be god himself. And the same "author" of the bible, the same ONE who made this proclomation was the source that they called upon and relied on for HIS power to perform their spells. Evidence has been uncovered that Jesus learned Egyptian magic, so his sources were the Egyptian Gods.
100
@93 I do approve of that approach. I haven't heard it as such...i always figured that such uses were semi-ironic in terms.
@96 I totally agree with the sentiment of that site. Although, when does feminism stop trying to be a victim and finally allow themselves to be a fully formed equal? One that can totally allow themselves to be called nasty names and not harp on it being a gendered epithet? In the case presented here, Sarah Palin, its not like she's a distraught housewife. She's a woman with standing and a bit of power, who is actually a bitch. She gets national attention (even though she shouldn't because she's just not that bright). Almost everything she says, I think "What a bitch." Just like almost everything Santorum or Romney or Obama says, I think "God, what a dick" or "What an asshole."
@96 I totally agree with the sentiment of that site. Although, when does feminism stop trying to be a victim and finally allow themselves to be a fully formed equal? One that can totally allow themselves to be called nasty names and not harp on it being a gendered epithet? In the case presented here, Sarah Palin, its not like she's a distraught housewife. She's a woman with standing and a bit of power, who is actually a bitch. She gets national attention (even though she shouldn't because she's just not that bright). Almost everything she says, I think "What a bitch." Just like almost everything Santorum or Romney or Obama says, I think "God, what a dick" or "What an asshole."
101
wow. i've just realised some of you people actually think that sarah palin is good looking :-O i realise that social norms on your side of the planet are even more different than i thought. funny. not to make a (whole new) value judgement on her looks, just that there was an argument that her being 'hot' was part of the dynamic.... and i got confused, had to check i was thinking of the right person. because over here - no, she's just fugly.
104
well, she's obviously good looking to you guys. but the cultural norms are different enough that it took me a while to realise... i was confused for a while about peoples arguments. which is pretty damn funny. i guess some cultural constructions don't translate well. and that's my point. that these arguments are based on a subjective judgment, and a set of constructions about 'what that means', not on any innate value of the object discussed.
107
Last week's wine fight was much more entertaining, although local maximums in this thread brought me closer to soiling my trousers.
Better luck next time.
You may go.
Better luck next time.
You may go.
108
@104: Looks are too tied to personality and intelligence for me, so when someone with an attractive shell reveals herself to be and idiot and an asshole, the shell just looks like veneer from then on. It's kind of like the way air freshener smells OK until you realize there's a note of poo it's not quite hiding.
109
hell no, not racist at all!! (and not sure how that would be applied....)
just commenting on cultural assumptions, and the places that arguments go to _based on those assumptions_. i'm on the other side of the world (where multi-cultural is also normal) and i'm just saying that _that_ angle isn't self-evident from the perspective of the cultural norms here.
wow. i didn't mean to offend anyone, i was just so surprised when i finally worked it out. i originally thought people were being really cruel and sarcastic, and that it was unnecessary/misogynistic vilification of a politician just because she was female and funny-looking (and also bat-crazy, obviously). you're entitled to see her as pretty. beauty is subjective.
just commenting on cultural assumptions, and the places that arguments go to _based on those assumptions_. i'm on the other side of the world (where multi-cultural is also normal) and i'm just saying that _that_ angle isn't self-evident from the perspective of the cultural norms here.
wow. i didn't mean to offend anyone, i was just so surprised when i finally worked it out. i originally thought people were being really cruel and sarcastic, and that it was unnecessary/misogynistic vilification of a politician just because she was female and funny-looking (and also bat-crazy, obviously). you're entitled to see her as pretty. beauty is subjective.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
US Military Grants Itself the Power to Police American Streets and "Quell" "Civil Disturbances" by Brendan Kiley
-
SL Letter of the Day: Living Discomfortably by Dan Savage
-
Slog Super Poll: Who Should Be Mayor? by Dominic Holden
-
Black Market Elimination Fail: Draft Pot Rules Call for Ban on Hash and Hash Oil by Ben Livingston
-
Tim Burgess Quits the Mayor's Race by Dominic Holden
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (109) RSS