I cringe every time I hear another guy refer to women like this
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
1038 points (97.0% liked)
196
16747 readers
2352 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's fine if it's consistent imo.
Men and women - 👍
Males and females - 👍
Boys and girls - 👍
Guys and gals - 👍
Men and females - 👎
Men and girls - 👎
Men and chicks - 👎
Seadogs and wenches - 🏴☠️
ヾ(⌐■_■)ノ♪
Comrades - ☭
males and females is still psychotic if you're not specifically talking science like biology, statistics, etc. adjectives as nouns are rarely a good sign in general; it's almost always derogative.
also boys and girls would be fine except most people who use (or claim to use) boys do it in familiar sense only. they'd never call a 40 year old jacked man they don't know a boy, but they'd easily call a grown ass woman they don't know a girl. exceptions are some phrases like "big boy" or "my boy" in endearing sense but that's not how "girl" is generally used, which is a substitute for "woman".
A lot of prior military folks will use males and females just because that's how it's been drilled into them. Male and female latrines, not men and women's bathrooms. Male and female barracks, not men and women's dorms. Male and female standards, etc etc.
dehumanization is part of military. that's not really an argument for it.
Is it not dehumanizing to call veterans psychotic? Seems a bit like kicking someone while they're down. The military broke them enough, the last things veterans need is to be mocked, dehumanized and treated like creeps.
first of all, i didn't call them psychotic. read it again.
second of all, you literally say they're broken. i don't know what to tell you.
and finally, fuck veterans, like I give a shit how they want to be treated. maybe they shouldn't thought of that before they volunteered to kill or help kill as many brown kids as they can. unless they were drafted or something then they get a pass. sort of.
I don't think the veterans are doing it just when talking about science. So that'd mean it would be psychotic, according to you. At least that's how I understood what you wrote.
as the commenter said, they say it because it's drilled into them. but it's drilled into them because it's dehumanizing. so yes, it is psychotic.
saying an action is psychotic is not the same as saying people who do an action are psychotic. that's the difference between saying "you're being silly" and "you're a silly person".
I'm just commenting that they said they didn't call them psychotic but also from the first message and the line you quoted it sounds like they are calling them psychotic.
I'm not trying to take part in the rest of the argument, it just confused me a bit
None of the veterans I know killed any brown kids. The people we shot were generally either shooting at us, or had just set off an IED with a car battery. Most of our interactions with kids involved someone getting in trouble for giving away MREs to the kids that would walk up to the vehicle.
wow #notallinvaders. i said kill or help kill. they fall into the second category. they still volunteered for unjust, illegal wars, unless you're talking about WW2 or something... the US had no right to be in any foreign country in the last few decades.
No one I fought with was helping kill brown kids either. You could argue that we were indirectly helping, since we were fighting for a country that was also sometimes bombing areas with civilians. If that's how you would like to approach this, then everyone helped.
If you've worked in retail then you've sold goods to soldiers, if you work in agriculture then you've fed them, and if you're a teacher then you educated them. Some small fraction of those soldiers went on to bomb kids somewhere.
If you want to criticize the US policy of invading other countries on a pretext and then propping up governments that do what we want, go ahead. I'm right there with you. If you want to live in a fantasy where all soldiers are merciless baby-killers, I guess you can do that, but that's where we part ways.
Soldiers are individuals, and they sign up for all sorts of reasons. A very common reason is an education that gives them a better shot at a high paying job so that they can care for their family or start one. Is it fucked that people feel the need to do that? Sure. Would it be great if there was a straight forward way for a person with no resources to get an education and a better job? Yes.
But currently, we're in an environment where risking your life to fight for your country in an unjust war is the best option some people have. And pretending that the reason they do it is because they're Bad People doesn't help solve the problem.
There’s a difference between the people who have served and the insane asylum they were subjected to. There are plenty of things that meat factory does to people that shouldn’t be replicated in society, and this is the least of them.
Those are not complete sentences or even a sort of expression of any coherent potential intent of expression. Go back to English class and fix your sentences, please.
I don't think that's true unless you mean within the context of referring to people or something, e.g. the blacks, the poors. But then stuff like "the rich" and "the unemployed" I don't really take issue with.
yeah, you're right but they're two different cases. notice how when it's right you don't pluralize it with an -s because some adjectives have a form of a plural noun, so they don't have a singular form: "a poor" or "a black" is just yikes. you can find words like "rich" as plural nouns apart from the adjective forms in the dictionary. you might find "female" and "black" as a noun for people too, but they should be marked offensive either directly or in usage notes.
so that's the distinction. "black" or "female" don't exist as plural nouns like "the rich" or "the blessed".
interestingly enough there are exceptions. there is no plural noun "the gay" but "gays" usually isn't offensive as a noun, but also "a gay" is weird and offensive. language is complicated.
I believe "the gays" used to be offensive, and I did notice that myself but it doesn't make sense to met that that would be the distinction!
i just suggested it as a shorthand. the actual distinction is whether the word is generally used as a noun as well as adjective, and when it is, usually it's used as a plural noun.
it makes sense because plural nouns usually are a quick way to refer to a section of a population that share an aspect. but using an adjective as a singular noun has the connotation of reducing someone to that one aspect of them, which is the adjective. and so using an adjective as a noun with an -s pluralization implies there's also a singular form which is usually offensive.
language is fluid and it evolves, so nothing here is a hard rule and there will be exceptions, and things might change with time. this is mostly based on observation and convention.
I'm not convinced that there's even a soft rule; I think it's just a case of the one or the other way of doing it nebulously sticking, like how sometimes you form a noun with -ness and sometimes you do it with -hood. Which now I think about it is more or less what you're saying, but I don't think it's done consciously at any rate.
language conventions are rarely conscious. they just happen. every now and then there's a campaign for our against using certain words or phrases; sometimes they stick and sometimes they don't. but those are conscious i guess. mostly though it just happens organically.
like a perfectly normal word becomes vulgar in time if enough people just say it a certain way. it's not like people suddenly hold a meeting and decide this word is bad now. it just starts to feel like it after a while, so it eventually becomes so.
The gays is weird because like so much terminology referring to queer people it’s reclaimed. And as with all language reclaimed in or near living memory the offensive use persists. Just like how “the queer community” is neutral as is “my sister is queer”, but “fuck you queer” or “I ain’t no queer” both use the word in its unreclaimed state, so too can “the gays” go. With it I tend to be primed for someone who is either familiar with the queer community or to hear some horribly offensive shit.
The thing is we got really good at reclaiming things in a way that I don’t know of any other group being as good at
yeah it depends i guess. saying "gays and lesbians" in passing is usually fine. but still, while you could say something like "this policy is discriminatory against gays" and not get much protest, the preferred use would still be "gay people".
Not really--as just one example, if you want to refer to something that is relevant to all ages, there is no single word that does the job more succinctly. Example: "Females blink about twice as often as males." <-- why should I have to write "Women and girls blink about twice as often as men and boys.", when better-fitting single terms exist that 'do trick'?
It's intellectually lazy people who imbue a bunch of sinister motivation into the words themselves, because it's easier than actually paying attention to what the person is actually saying, and assessing that.
that's statistics.
also no one imbued anything. i specifically said there were contexts in which it would make sense and otherwise it wouldn't.
The OP, and the amount of agreement it's gotten here, directly contradicts this.
If one is judging how trustworthy someone is based on whether they use a certain word, then they have indeed imbued the word itself with negativity, by definition.
what's with the reading comprehension today? not whether they use a certain word. whether they use a certain word within or without certain contexts. so no. not the word itself; the usage.
also not really important here but just for future reference, the number of people agreeing with something bears no indication toward its validity.
What "certain contexts" does the OP mention?
But it does bear a direct indication toward the assertion that it is a thing that is done.
what are you even talking about? i mentioned contexts. you don't seem to be able to follow the conversation.
Tamales and females
What about "dudes and chicks?"
Picture you gettin down inside a picture tube.
“Dudes and dudettes” seems more on the level.
dudes and dudettes?
Context is king, so I don't think this is universal. Decent list though.
Bros and broads - 🤔
Chaps and dames
What's the male equivalent of Femoids? Is it just Moids?
I think it unironically would be androids.
I've seen moids used as a shorthand for femoids. So that one is confusing.
God damn wokes are trying to push men out of the space! /s
Technically those would be gynoids, so android would indeed be the male equivalent.
The ONLY time it’s fine is if it’s in a medical report or scientific paper. Written by actual doctors or scientists. And it is done to dehumanize the subject to make it easier for, say, a medical examiner to write a report without breaking down.
Using male and female for people is inheritantly dehumanizing, and that’s only ok in very specific circumstances.
Folks 👨🌾
Dicks and chicks. Like the band.