Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In Columns
Editors' Picks
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
All I said to seandr is that I wished I understood men better.
Now, you can say that you don't think Ms Erica's phrases are as good, or you can say that you find it useful to be misunderstood as that helps you weed out people you wouldn't want to waste time getting to know better, or that you like to see how closely people guess your meaning, or that you support a particular quantity of essentialism; there are a number of answers that bring us to the fork in the road, and that's fine.
Are you kidding? You couldn't pay me a million dollars to convert to lesbianism. Men make way more sense than women.
@98 Mr. Ven, A desire to understand men better should not be taken as an indicator that a straight woman desires some further degree of separation from the male gender; some of us who are close to Kinsey 1 understand our own gender all too well and find it much easier to be friends with the opposite gender.
I'm NOT trying to convert or sound passive-aggressive here (really, I'm not!). No matter how many times I've sadly stuck out with the opposite sex, I'm shyly about as het as they come.
I'm certainly not a homophobe, but just don't have a lot of male friends, and was wondering. There are plenty of heterosexual men out there willing to just be friends, aren't there?
I'm NOT interested in dating. The current singles' scene reminds me of the Pat Benatar song, 'Love is a Battlefield'.
@111: Like, from Victoria's Secret?
Besides, out of sheer curiosity I DID recently survey the personals ads of men in my age bracket in The Stranger---both in Lovelab and Lustlab.
The kind of gal I am and the babe they are seeking (i.e.: many are doms seeking subs) usually aren't the same woman. That's okay. I'm otherwise
not out actually seeking, despite major improvements lately in my health and overall appearance (35 lbs. melted off, and I can eat gluten-and-sugar-free chocolate cake!!!).
*sigh*
Oh, well...I girl can dream!
Haha, thanks!
@Griz
You're not weird, you're the norm. I'm weird.
et al...
If we're talking about friends, most of my friends are female (or gay men) actually. I've had some wonderful friendships with straight guys but they always blew up in the end because the guy wanted to date me. Friendships with straight women are safe from that. Putting up with the less direct, less intuitive way that women go about relationships is a small price to pay to not have to deal with that again. But in the context of a relationship... ugh. God. Plus also most women don't put out nearly enough to be relationship material in my books.
I know a lot of straight women envy lesbians but being with guys is a million times better in my books.
Ms Grizelda - As I said, they take it much farther than you do. You just inspired the thought; it wasn't intended to try to represent you. I'm glad you're enjoying your cake.
Ms Driasis - This isn't about you. It's much more about women you've made it clear you don't much like. I'll assume that you don't intend to assert that the women using Serena Williams' arguably (for some, arguably not for others) victim-blaming comments about the Steubenville rape case as an opportunity to blame men for her point of view all think exactly the way you do. If anything, I thought you'd be pleased to be the exception.
Ms Cardia - A good many, I grant you. But remember one of the prime cornerstones of Woolfsplaining - Chloe liked Olivia. (Also, I do not claim that there would not be many who would regret the decision, especially if taken in haste.)
Giving the matter a modicum of thought, it would probably depend on the nature of the process. If it required a course of some months, the initial impulse would generally weaken. But if it were a question of taking a pill at night and waking up completely different, there'd be takers.
I'll admit that the original statement mainly seemed like a nice bit of rhetoric.
Really? And how are you doing that - by fighting it out every day in the corporate trenches and boardrooms in order to provide for your stay-at-home husband and kids? Serving as a combat soldier? Getting the door for your husband or carrying his bags? Or by playing dictionary police on the internet while taking full advantage of the gender binary in your enviable feminine life?
Many people still use "man up" to mean "be a man" (not weak like a woman)
The first part is true - "man up" is a call for a person (usually but not necessarily a man) to live up to the speaker's standards of masculinity. This might mean, specifically, to be more stoic, brave, tougher, less complicated. Or it might be a call to provide. Or to protect, using physical force if necessary.
None of this implies that femininity is weak, or that it doesn't have its own means of assuming and wielding power. Masculinity and femininity have such a funny co-dependency between them.
The gender binary certainly isn't for everyone, and it needn't be (and never really was) strictly tied to X and Y chromosomes. I'm certainly open to examining it and changing the terms, but I find calls for its death much more compelling when they come from women who, having "walked the walk", truly appreciate what "manning up" really means.
Hey, I just thought of something: @74 says 'hold the mayo'.
I wonder if my quirky late 40ish idiosyncrasies would dissipate further
if I held the meno (mayo I can still have---it's ketchup that's a no-no for me because of the sugar and high fructose corn syrup)?
Sometimes I don't know how my landlady and surrounding neighbors put up with me.
At least I can eat dark chocolate again.
Did I mention being nuts?
My point being that *I* care because vocabulary and meaning are so intertwined as to be practically the same thing. "Care's" does not equal "cares". Niggerly IS offensive, and while I'm not in favor misrepresenting the past, I'm not in favor of letting the offense go by unnoticed either.
The response from Mrs King was that, while Margaret might not have been a feminist, she was feminism in action. Who, after all, was going around the world and raking in the $200,000? Margaret. Who was watching devotedly from the stands and taking care of the kid? Barry.
Sorry, but the whole "this generation will ruin everything if we don't try to force them to do things our way!" argument gets tired after a couple millennia or so.
Don't get me wrong, I do find incorrect use of "your/you're" and "there/they're/their" to be a little off-putting, but I've never encountered a real-life example where I couldn't make sense of it with context.
Also, with the "niggardly" comment, you're missing the point. His/her very point was that it WASN'T the kind of word you'd use today BECAUSE it's offensive in today's context. People who want to preserve language in amber would assert that the word isn't offensive because it wasn't offensive in it's original meaning and historical context, so we should still use it today. Thinking you can manufacture the future into being like the present is no less ridiculous than thinking you can manufacture the past into being like the present.
Language evolves. You can evolve with it, or not. Your choice.
Or do you think that's what the poster of 123 really meant, mistaking an old Norse word for a racial epithet and re-doing the spelling?
It's times like these that I wish Mr Ank were still among us. I don't see why one can't just use the root word niggling instead to avoid a word that sounds offensive, but the controversies that have arisen make me despair.
Not quite the same thing, but, as a tribute to David Suchet's completing his ongoing portrayal of Hercule Poirot (which lasted almost a quarter-century) by finally filming the last of the novels and stories this spring, I shall recall the ending of Hickory Dickory Dock. The BBC feature-length episode, having already included scenes in which neither Chief Inspector Japp nor Miss Lemon found an old recipe of Poirot's mother to be appetizing, and in which Miss Lemon's idea of a healthy meal (being more healthful than abundant) failed to impress Japp, ended with Japp giving Poirot a very English lunch of mushy peas and faggots with spotted dick for pudding, forcing Poirot to think on the spot and invent a phobia (or two when pressed).
Ps I can only think at this point that you put in that letter and responded so ridiculously that you are trolling. I think they're hiring at FOX news. You should apply.
Your argument seems more applicable to the racial word. It was once in common use in polite society, and has become (generally) offensive. (INAY - It's Not About You - for those who use it privately with a different connotation.) A word that we choose not to use because it sounds a good deal like an undisputedly (if the stipulation flies) offensive word and therefore can reasonably be seen as likely to produce hurt feelings in listeners who know the proper meaning and etymology of the word is at least slightly a different case.
I'm sure you won't miss my presence which will be replaced by the hundreds of thousands of pederasts who now believe you endorse their behavior.
FOX news is hiring. You should apply.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "niggerly" as being an obsolete form of "niggardly." "Niggardly" refers to acting the manner of a niggard, i.e. parsimoniously, stingily, spending money sparingly and grudgingly.
There is no racial component to being a niggard or to acting in a niggardly fashion. I would like to know what book #123 is referring to, what the actual word is, and what context it occurred in.
Language evolves and changes, but no one forces anyone to give up older words or established usage. I often find them more precise and less given to the ambiguity that drives this thread into nit-picky pissing contests. So I prefer to say "coward" to "pussy," or "grow up" to "man up." But I understand what others mean who use those phrases, and I don't feel the need to direct their language usage.
@131 and those preceding it:
But the OED also defines "niggery" as "of or belonging to, characteristic of negroes." First established use, 1855.
So perhaps that is what #123 was referring to.
I think that using a gendered phrase across gender lines, so long as the connotations of the phrase are positive and the inference is that the recipient, whether male or female, should adopt some of the characteristics supplied by the phrase is another way of breaking down the gender binary. If a woman can "man up," and get tougher, a man can surely "woman up," and develop some more empathy. And everyone can always be reminded to "grow up." Which is what I want to tell Seandr to do in regards to you right now.
The converse is when gendered language reflecting negative gender essentialism gets used cross-genderdly:
My father used to be very proud of how he got a meeting of all male executives to order when they were bickering about a lot of petty points: he would say, "alright, LADIES, it's time to get back to business." He thought it was SO funny because nothing whipped them back into (male) shape faster than implying that they were acting like women! Wasn't that clever?! I read him the riot act. I respectfully reamed him. He laughed it off. His silly, feminist daughter. But guess what happened? Actual women started to be in those meetings, and when the managers started bickering, he had to come up with a better, less offensive way to get them back on track. His way of expressing itself had to evolve. I wish I could say that his thinking evolved, too, but I doubt it did.
Either quite a few people secretly want to nail their moms, or perhaps more likely, a lot of people can understand the kink as an abstract.
Um... really?
Behold, the generation gap, and race gap, in all their glory!
We're not talking about a super-common, super-useful word here. We're talking about an archaic word that has fallen mostly out of use anyway. I don't think finding a synonym for a bizarre, antiquated word that a lot of English speakers are unfamiliar with (and are likely to mistake for an especially hateful and dehumanizing racial slur) is too much to ask.
And I find it especially interesting that skipping the use of "niggardly" is considered absurdly PC while Erica's objection to the term "woman up" is considered fine. Gives a hint about the demographics of the commenters here, doesn't it?
But I do think it is a bit absurd when people are cowed into not using language because the general population is ignorant as to the meaning of a word. Several years ago, a politician found himself in hot water over just that word. The number of people who were OUTRAGED without bothering to look up the word . . .
The thing is that political correctness is a slippery slope. Words only have as much power as we give them. When people become afraid to utter a word, even in a non-offensive context, they give it a power it shouldn't have. It becomes like Voldemort. When people feel that they have to say "the n-word" instead of "nigger" IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT LANGUAGE (not, obviously, in a name-calling epithet intended to offend and denigrate), it has turned into "he-that-cannot-be-named," as if the very word, spoken aloud, will summon some spectre of racist hatred. That is when mindless political correctness has won.
People love to suggest that not using racial slurs will make them "more powerful" (to whom?), with the underlying implication that there will be more relevant effects on fighting racism if white people stop using racial slurs.
What evidence is there for that? Sociopolitical circumstances and power imbalances give words their power, not how much they're used. Do you really, honestly, think the word has more "power" today than it did in the days of slavery? Do you honestly think that calling someone a racial slur means more because of rarity? Or do you think a racial slur means more when the victim of it is especially vulnerable to being exploited/abused/murdered/enslaved/imprisoned by the person using it?
I get that making a word socially "forbidden" adds something to its gravity - for the white people who want to use it. And so it should be. What's wrong with treating a serious fucking word with a serious fucking history... seriously?
I don't suggest that the word nigger has more power today than it did it the days of slavery. I am not advocating its use as a racial slur. I treat it very seriously.
And I also think that people should use it, rather that euphemisms ("the word," as you keep saying, or "the n-word" as others say) when they are discussing the very concept of offensive language or history. That is what I'm talking about.
Recently there has been a push to crack down on the words "retard" and "retarded." But the offensiveness of those words being used as slurs doesn't mean that they aren't still perfectly good descriptors of people who are intellectually disabled. We can, of course, either shame or legislate the terms out of existence, and insist on replacing them with the politically correct "intellectually disabled," but over time, people will turn that phrase into some sort of derogatory slur and the pattern will repeat.
We should distinguish between using a word in a way intended to cause harm to another and using it in a discussion about language. That is what I was saying. When we need to allude to a specific word in the context of having a discussion about that particular word because we can't even utter the word or write it under any circumstances because to do so is to be somehow causing offense, we have entered into George Orwell territory.
I teach Sherman Alexie's short story "Indian Education." Sherman Alexie is an Indian. He's also a writer and an activist. He uses the word "Indian" to refer to himself and others who share his ethnicity. Every year, I have college students who, products of their politically correct education, can't say or write the word "Indian," and who want to substitute the term "Native American." I tell them that I am a Native American, having been born in America, but I'm not Indian. It's an imprecise term, used only by "Dances-With-Wolves"-loving-guilty-white-liberals. Furthermore, it is Alexie's preferred identifier. If he can use it, I tell them, it's time for them to man up and use it, too. Not in a derogatory way, but as a simple adjective.
I was going to say "you would not believe the consternation this causes," but actually, anyone who's been following this thread and the "man up/woman up" discussion, should be able to imagine it clearly.
"When we need to allude to a specific word in the context of having a discussion about that particular word because we can't even utter the word or write it under any circumstances because to do so is to be somehow causing offense, we have entered into George Orwell territory."
Are you joking?
When you can get stopped and searched just for walking down the street, that's George Orwell territory. When people are being imprisoned en masse for normal behaviour, that's George Orwell territory. Me choosing not to use a word that is offensive when it's not necessary? That's not George Orwell territory. The fact that you knew exactly what I meant illustrates the fact that there was no reason for me to use the literal word.
I think your comparison is honestly absurd, and frankly, insulting in a world where very real, very important rights are being held from people as we speak.
"I don't think finding a synonym for a bizarre, antiquated word that a lot of English speakers are unfamiliar with (and are likely to mistake for an especially hateful and dehumanizing racial slur) is too much to ask."
I wasn't saying that people should be jailed, or banned or anything else, I was simply suggesting that it's not ethical to use racial slurs (or words that sound so close to them as to be indistinguishable for the average listener) and that asking people not to do so is an acceptable request.
Again, I think it speaks to some messed up priorities and possibly some entitlement and privilege issues.
I don't know how to be clearer, so I will leave it to someone else to try to clarify the point I was laboring to make with so little success.
I don't use the word nigger as a slur. I have never and would never call a person a nigger. I think that the word itself should be able to be used in discussion of LANGUAGE without the person who used it being branded a racist. I said specifically at my post at 142 that I DO NOT use the words niggard or niggardly because I am aware that many people, unfamiliar with their meanings, and likely to hear the word nigger, would be offended and I like to avoid giving offense, especially when (a) a completely different sentiment is being expressed and (b) I have lots of verbal alternatives.
Reread your Orwell. Specifically his essay "Politics and the English Language."
And brush up on your logic. My saying or not saying the word "nigger" in the context of a discussion about language usage will not right the wrongs perpetuated by people all over the world (I don't know what wrongs you are referring to, but it won't change political policy regarding education or clean up the water, or extend human rights or eradicate the death penalty, or end sexism, or stop the spread of HIV, or whatever you were thinking of).
And of course I knew what word you were using without you using it: we are having a discussion about the use of the word nigger--I am actually writing it--so you have a context from which to infer. Your refusal to write it and your attitude that simply voicing it, no matter the context, contributes to a global culture of racist oppression and that by its correlative, you can eradicate racism if you just somehow don't utter it, is like a child who believes that if her eyes are closed, no one can see her.
And if you read what I actually wrote, you'll see I never suggested that anyone else couldn't use language I choose not to, nor have I criticized your current use, I also haven't suggested that not using racial slurs will end racism (but it's a least a less absurd premise than suggesting that using more of them will end racism!). You're arguing against a point I never made.
I'm just commenting at all the pearl clutching that happens the minute anyone says anything even EVOCATIVE of the suggestion that you "can't" use whatever word you want, whenever you want, in whatever context you want.
When it comes to the use of racial slurs, I tend to care more about the opinions of people who are likely targets of those slurs than people who are safe from them... such as George Orwell. Partly because he's dead! But also because he was white. But I have read three of his books, and sorry, not every one of his essays. I sort of have other things to do.
"Me choosing not to use a word that is offensive when it's not necessary? That's not George Orwell territory. The fact that you knew exactly what I meant illustrates the fact that there was no reason for me to use the literal word."
I didn't. I thought you were still talking about "niggardly"/ "niggerly".
There are lots of commentators here, with different opinions. Many people in this thread have said I'm wrong. Not all of them agree with each other on other issues. And, for the record, I said @136 that "woman up" was less of an issue for me than "man up." Attack me for attacking "man up" if you must, but at least pay attention.
Ms Cute - Good to see you here, even late in the discussion.
Pedants everywhere!
"What would I have done without you,' said Lady Vera," I don't know. Some men in your position would have ruined everything by being niggardly."
@124 Considering I've had twelve hours of sleep over the course of three days and work in a labor intensive environment I consider a few errors without a compromise of meaning a victory. Especially one made from rewriting a sentence on the spur of a moment. So go on enjoying(?) yourself, I hope to have some more technical errors you can attack instead of engaging me in a thoughtful argument. BTW, I recommend "Grammar Snobs Are Great Big Meanies: A Guide To Language For Fun And Spite" By June Casagrande
EricaP, I really don't care that you ARE offended or what you're offended BY, just the fact that you would go to such an extent and in such a rude manner to express your displeasure over something so meaningless as slang. All my life I've been reminded that I'd be judged by the way I choose to speak, and the sad thing is it's always been painfully true, but I will always resent and fight it, if I can't use it to my advantage against the "haters" that is.
@124 again; What you're suggesting (I wouldn't go so far as saying you mean it outright) is that re-definition and alteration are at war with substance and meaning. I think not, because these harmless and usually easily understood alterations have their own history and depth. They can describe our parents, our geography, our lifestyle, and even our beliefs. Why should anyone get to police that?
@156: Well, that's our gang: we're all about the word usage.
Although I was interested in the incest letter. Not the legality, nor the mayo angle (though this might be a good explanation for why I have never liked mayonnaise that much), but the "does the representation of something in a fictional way lead to people's thinking it is acceptable in real life" question, which unfortunately I don't think has been adequately or definitively answered yet.
I get what you mean and I think there's some truth to it, it just never ceases to amaze me that people always want to run to obscure exceptions whenever the subject of not saying racial slurs come up - even when the original comment isn't making the suggestion that such words be banned outright. From where I'm sitting it's like one person saying "hey, racial profiling is bad" and then the other person responds "but what if someone had a bus full of orphans hostage and the only way to free them was to racially profile? WHAT THEN?". When someone suggests that we ban derogatory racist terms from academic settings, then I think these anecdotes are pertinent arguments, but until then...
Pssttt, at 40 Mommy's not supposed to be making your decisions for you anymore just FYI.
I'm having trouble finding someone to have sex with. you can message me at potteryheads@gmail.com
It strikes me as helpful to keep a distinction between user-based offence and reader/hearer-based offence, though I appreciate that it's easier just to dump a word or phrase into the Do Not Use bucket and never think of it again.
Here's my larger point. I take for granted that the language will change over time and that the language will be different from one user to the next. I do not have patience with people using that truism as an excuse to use whatever words they want while expecting the listener to assume good will or to figure out what the hell the other is talking about. The effort to communicate has to go two ways.
Often I am able to figure out what a speaker meant to convey. One example is when the speaker is coming to me through time as when speaking to me through the pages of an old book. I'm able to put the words into context and understand them in the way they were originally meant. I expect future generations to do that for me if they should happen on my letters and postings.
I have less patience with lazy communications in the present. I feel like yelling "FIGURE OUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IT'S AND ITS, AND GET IT RIGHT." That's not because I think there's some high pure standard looking down and grading us all. It's because I find it hard to read when there are those sorts of errors, have to take the time to go back and reread, and resent being required to make the effort. I recognize that I make spelling, punctuation and grammar mistakes too, but I don't do it with an air of "oh, you take care of it. I can't be bothered." For that reason, I don't run around correcting everyone unless they, as Reallynow did in 123, pull the I'm-better-than-you-because-I-put-apostrophes-in-cares-stunt.
That said, Mr. Ven, I don't wish to give the impression that I always mind making an effort. I adore your writing style. I look forward to looking up characters' names because so much more can be expressed with a well placed reference. When you do it, it adds to the communication experience rather than detracts.
It's helpfulness is limited by the fact that there's a real trend (especially with racist/sexist/homophobic terminology) for the user to think he/she is the sole arbiter of whether or not the word is offensive.
I see his point. Dan, your advice to NASTY is wrong - wrong headed, wrong hearted, just wrong. Some things are all together too common and too tolerated to pretend that they're just a fantasy, and if you don't know by now about this terrible problem, then perhaps you should consider another line of work.
Q: Would you have advised NASTY that it'd be okay to torture his sex slave for the vicarious amusement of someone on the phone? I mean, sex slavery is okay, right??? It's okay to fantasize about denying a person basic human rights for sexual gratification, right?? Right???
It's the same thing.
I understand why my husband says he ain't reading "Savage Love" anymore.
If a person likes to fantasize about having a sex slave and finds another adult, mentally capable person who likes to fantasize to be a sex slave, then it is okay for them to engage in mutually satisfying slave-and-torture play.
And if a third person likes to listen in, and they want this third person to listen in, then it makes three people happy!
I'd draw the line, however, at any torture play that leaves the slave permanently damaged, even if the slave would like to be permanently damaged. Just doesn't seem like a healthy idea.
Now good mustard, bbq sauce...
Please write me back at potteryheads@gmail.com
I understand wanting communication to be straight forward and etc. The simple fact is that unless you're asking the person next to you for the pepper shake it's almost never easy or simple. For example;
"For that reason, I don't run around correcting everyone unless they, as Reallynow did in 123, pull the I'm-better-than-you-because-I-put-apostrophes-in-cares-stunt."
Oh, so that's what I was doing! How silly of me. This whole time I thought I accidently left something in a sentence when I rewrote it, but I really just wanted to piss random strangers off with my grammar. Thank you, Crinoline for driving home your point that communication is a two-way street...as long as both parties want it to be.
@168 Yes, I must have misspelled. I was in a hurry and going off of pure memory before my morning cup of coffee. Please forgive me. The larger point was that the word was something that could be taken offense to, but that the desire to understand what the speaker is saying should overcome any squeamishness in the listener to prevent coming to any early conclusions. The merit of taking offense to something like that I leave for everyone to decide for themselves.
@181: Yesssssss! I do LOVE a good, juicy steak! But I have to avoid ketchup, steak sauces like A-1, and other condiments containing sugar for dietary reasons.
Red, red wiiiiiiiiine.....stay close to meeeeeeeeeee.......
Ramped over into modern times, the genetic issue is still there. The other one is reflected in the fact that families practicing incest have some seriously fucked up dynamics, and maintaining a strong incest taboo provides some protection to the weaker members: children, handicapped, etc. It says that the people most responsible for forming you through childhood, and for caring for you in times of crisis, can't use you for sex. Rather than consider each incest case on the merits--"I waited until my son/daughter's 18th birthday to fully consummate our relationship and go all the way, per the laws in our state, and of course it is fully consensual on the part of my 18 year old, just ask her/him! I'll sit with you while you ask"--society finds it a lot more useful to just assume this is fucked up. I don't think society is wrong in this instance.
I say "Hang in there, we'll get through this"
Mayonnaise - no way -- wasabi
This makes it different from porn, where we know it's a show.
Agree with the comment about peers' behavior being seen as licensing.
NASTY should reveal on the phone that this is just a fantasy; better yet, get the girlfriend to clearly state this.
Disappointed Dan didn't spot this difference; agree as it is his advice is way off.
@189: I'll hold the meno.
You most certainly do not "have to" keep your family in your life. Least of all if you're a victim of incest.
I know that's not where you were going with that point, but the socially-enforced presumption that keeping your family in your life is a given.... can be very damaging.
In my view, your opinions on the meaning of "man up" are about as informed as my opinions on the meaning of "motherhood".
That's not to say I don't or can't have opinions on motherhood. However, motherhood is not something I've directly experienced, it's not a title I feel that I've earned, and therefore, it's not something I would ever lay claim to, nor would I try to gloss over the intense pressure and hormonal changes and emotional and physical exhaustion that so many mothers experience, especially in the early years, by suggesting that they are, in fact, exactly the same thing as fatherhood. (This, despite the fact that I'm a very involved father.)
And yet that's kind of what you're doing with your attempt to redefine "man up" - you're conveniently ignoring what manhood really means and then claiming it for yourself.
Maybe we'll get to a place someday where motherhood and fatherhood are synonymous, and "man up" means the same thing as "woman up". Until then, I think it's good manners to appreciate and respect these different roles and realities and the unique contributions they make, while also honoring and accepting the exceptional people who cross gender lines to step into these roles.
I definitely don't feel that you HAVE to keep family in your life. However, while I think the ick factor I feel personally would keep me from involving myself in an incestuous relationship (even the legal ones), I would assume that, one who does is meeting the other person at a family event. If the person doesn't have a close family, this is a non-issue. But if you are a person who spends a lot of time with family (for example my family is pretty close) it would be a really difficult decision to make to stop going to family functions just to avoid one person.
I wouldn't want to have to lose out on my family because I couldn't just find someone who isn't related to me to date/sleep with.
Out of curiosity, where do you see me redefining 'man up'? I think I'm using the standard definition. Perhaps you're confusing me with lolorhone?
Neither one of you get it, I couldn't have possibly been clearer with regards to usage (92)and intention (104), there has been quite a bit "claimed" and "ignored" in this ridiculous back and forth, most of it centered squarely on what I did or did not say even though it's printed as clear as day on this thread. This is officially your problem.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph…
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph…
When you said @48, 55, 92, 104, and 202, that you mean "woman up" to connote the same thing as "man up" (ie, be mature), you are changing the meaning of the phrase. I like your meaning better, but I think it is reasonable to (a) note that it's a change to the standard usage, and (b) discuss whether the phrase is worth reappropriating from its negative connotations. (I think it's not worth it; you seem to disagree.)
It sounds like seandr is arguing for a mild version of the original meaning: "man up" would mean something different from "woman up" but without suggesting women are lesser than men. I don't think that's possible but if he wants to make the argument, or correct my (likely) misunderstanding of his position, he's welcome to.