Sexism on STW (a goodbye and some thanks :) )

druidh – Member
grum – I’m being serious about the use of those word and phrases. I find them as offensive as the words **** and ****

Honestly? Do Scottish people really suffer from genuine serious discrimination/racism then? Shall we ban sassenach too then? I don’t much like Jock or ‘Sweaty’ either tbh though…

completely ignore a post where the the phrase has been used in front of 40,000 women and accepted as being consensual.

Trailmonkey; something for you to think about:

Who, in that situation, was using the comment?

(Thinking about the use of the ‘N’ word by Black music artists my help in this context…)

grum – I’m being serious about the use of those word and phrases. I find them as offensive as the words **** and ****

As the subject of the comment, Onion has every right to express his dislike for it, if he finds it offensive. I think he makes a very good point actually.

A Scottish mate of ours was jokingly called ‘Jock’ by a couple of our group. Not to be ofensive, more affectionately really. He turned round one day and sed ‘dinnae call me Jock, eh? I dinnae like it. Call me ‘Scottish Bastard’ if ye like, but no’ Jock’.

So, they listened to what he sed, and respected his wishes by not using that word again.

Mind you, they are reasonably intelligent Human Beings…

Just so I can set the record straight, I don’t and I won’t use that phrase. Have a look through my posts TJ should you wish (and I’m sure you’re ‘anal’ enough). For reference, I also don’t use the ‘C’ word – I find that offensive and overuse of any swearwords i find unnecessary as well.

However, you misquoted me to start with and you’ve continued to argue that its a reference to rape even when it isn’t ever since.

Apply some common sense to the situation. Those that think its rape related are in the minority, many have stated that although it doesn’t they do find it offensive. THerefore the feeling is that we shouldn’t use the term. Simple.

Now for the love of God, please stop….

its not what you intend that matters – its how its perceived by others

TJ – aside from the observation that your assertion rather flies in the face of trends in linguistic theory, typing it on here does leave you with a fairly massive hostage to fortune in the future with future contributions to this or any other debate.

For my own part, I’ve always thought the “smashing back doors in” terminology had rather abusive overtones, even if it’s not intended to imply non-consensual sex. As such, I had it mentally filed under ‘knuckle dragger’ alongside a little picture of Richard Keys and Andy Gray.

At worst those who claim it means consensual sex are being disingenuous. “smash in” or “Kick in” implys force to me

Not force, just consensual passion, enthusiasm and vigour.

I’ve never yet met a woman who, in the throes of ecstatic passion, has cried out “Softer, softer, slower, slower”.

But still, +1 Elf.

Very long story short forced censorship is never good but then again politeness and respect cost nothing and are an essential part of society. I’ve used that phrase here several times but may think twice before doing so again or I may not, depends on the context.

Many people ask for a change in attitudes in some people, in order that the forum can be a nicer environment for all.

So why haven’t you changed then Elf?

You seem more than happy to ask for it in others.

+1 in the “I never thought it meant anal rape” category……

Although it’s not exactly a great phrase to use whatever the circumstances. I can’t think where I’ve heard it, apart from on here.

It’s interesting that the above quoted post by hora was reported to the mods by Junkyard and they let it stand.

Now for the love of God, please stop….

“Listen, and understand. TJ is out there. He can’t be bargained with. He can’t be reasoned with. He doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And he absolutely will not stop, ever, until he is right.”

“Listen, and understand. TJ is out there. He can’t be bargained with. He can’t be reasoned with. He doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And he absolutely will not stop, ever, until he is right.”

I’m starting to understand this…

#

TandemJeremy – Member

oldnpastit

I’ve always read it as being a reference to rape. I’m amazed anyone could think otherwise.

ernie_lynch
I’ve always taken it as meaning non-consensual sex, or at the very least, some degree of resistance.

Otherwise it would be something along the lines of “using the back door/trademen’s entrance”. Why would anyone talk about ‘kicking doors in’, if they are being ‘welcomed’ ?

orangina – Member
BUT – and this is a firm and big BUT – ‘Kicking in the back door’ – I didn’t know the expression til I came to this thread – is outrageous and wrong on so many levels.
You CANNOT give rape a pet name, rape is always rape and has to be called that. You cannot use this in any way to describe it, you’re making the act less severe and mock it. If your partner was raped, would you use this expression to describe the crime ?

StefMcDe

I’m with TJ and the handwringing do-gooders on this one. I’m no prude but “banter” which implies, jokes about or normalises violent, unconsensual sex is bad form. So “kicking back doors in”, “would you smash it”, “that winger’s raped the full-back all day long” – I would think less of anyone, mates included, who use this terminology.

Karinofnine – The remark which put me off being here is the back doors remark. Sorry, but it isn’t funny, flippant, lighthearted, a parody, analogy or a joke. It is a reference to unconsensual sex – ie rape, and rape simply ain’t funny (from either a male or female perspective).

Just going back a couple of pages.

so its not just me who sees it in this way.
I have posted this again as it got lost at the bottom of a page.

ditch_jockey – Member

“its not what you intend that matters – its how its perceived by others”

TJ – aside from the observation that your assertion rather flies in the face of trends in linguistic theory, typing it on here does leave you with a fairly massive hostage to fortune in the future with future contributions to this or any other debate.

so its acceptable to say offensive things if there is no intent to offend?

Thats the Jim Davidson defense

Its acceptable to say ****? chink for chinese? so long as you didn’t intend to offend?

grum – Member
Honestly? Do Scottish people really suffer from genuine serious discrimination/racism then? Shall we ban sassenach too then? I don’t much like Jock or ‘Sweaty’ either tbh though…

Racism – absolutely. Think “stereotyping” and the media.

Maybe I’m just a sensitive soul, but I’d never use Paddy or Mick or Taff either.

As for sassenach, that’s the gaelic word for “southerner” and my mother-in-law would use it to describe me without being at all perjorative.

Trailmonkey; something for you to think about:

Who, in that situation, was using the comment?

(Thinking about the use of the ‘N’ word by Black music artists my help in this context…)

doesn’t matter, the point is being made over and over that the phrase means rape.

are you suggesting that a woman is asking someone to rape her or that women might enjoy that ?

or are we now saying that women can use the phrase but men can’t ?

what about gay men that are happy to indulge in anal sex ? can they say it ?

clarification needed.

wwtjd ?

Please make it stop 🙁

And he absolutely will not stop, ever, until he is right

The point he becomes right is normally immediately after the opponent has given up all hope of reasoning with him and wandered from the thread waiting to wind him up on another day.

And he absolutely will not stop, ever, until he is right.”

Sadly, there are occasions where his viewpoint never will be, then you get situations such as this…

I’m with trailmonkey on this: If 40,000 screaming females seemed to like the remark, then presumably that outranks 10 hand-wringers on an internet forum?

Mods – I’m as keen on free speech as the next person but this thread is now 14 pages long and has descended into an increasingly familiar mix of disproportionate outrage, piss taking and endless pedantry in order for some egocentric posters to score spurious points over their perceived rivals.

Will continuation of this thread really do the forum or STW any good? Please close the thread.

Do you deliberately intend to offend by calling people “godbotherer” TJ.

I kind of agree with your point but I think you’re on shaky ground…

No one is now saying that no one considers the phrase is talking about rape BUT equally, many have also said that they never considered it that way. The key point is whether anyone who uses the phrase will continue using it that way now.

The fact that this thread has descended into TJ digging his heels in and a number of other people pitching in either pro or anti epitomises what I find bad on this forum.

It’s laready been agreed (by most) that the phrase shoudln’t be used on here any more it really doesn’t matter that it means different things to different people.

If people report its use and the moderators delete the posts then it’s sorted out.

5 pages of TJ v the world isn’t going to make it any more better and just means the thread descends into bickering, losing the point being made by the op.

TJ – please look at the bigger picture it’s not just about that phrase it’s about attitudes.

Probably shouldn’t say this but….

Amongst many of my friendship group we joke about all sorts of appalling things, some of the women I know are at least as bad as the blokes. Sometimes there’s little that’s off limits. Sometimes things can be funny because they are so offensive/unpleasant.

I dunno whether this is ‘ok’ or not, but I realise for many people it’s not, and I wouldn’t dream of doing it in front of people I didn’t know. It’s just basic politeness.

TJ: half the people you are quoting admit they had never heard the phrase before and have taken on your (in my opinion, rather twisted) interpretation of it.

A female forum member expresses dislike over certain attitudes which are present on the forum, and in particular one oft-used phrase which she finds very offensive.

This.

It doesn’t really matter what you mean by the phrase, just as using “****” doesn’t necessarily make you a racist. But you can be sure that offence is going to be taken, which is reason enough to stop doing it.

Its acceptable to say ****? chink for chinese?
Posted 2 minutes ago # Report-Post

clubber – Member

Do you deliberately intend to offend by calling people “godbotherer” TJ.

I kind of agree with your point but I think you’re on shaky ground…

That shows the point exactly

No – I had no intention to offend at all. I thought that was a jokey way of saying those of religious belief. However people were offended, so clearly it is an offensive word and I apologised for it and won’t do it again.

So despite me having no intent to offend its was found to be offensive – ie its not the intent its how its perceived

I, and many others tend to find TJ’s holier-than-thou patronising method of failing to get his argument across offensive. Perhaps you should take this on board, TJ?

I find this thread offensive and I’d like you all to stop please.

It’s laready been agreed (by most) that the phrase shoudln’t be used on here any more it really doesn’t matter that it means different things to different people.
…
5 pages of TJ v the world isn’t going to make it any mor ebetter and just detracts means the thread descends into bickering losign the point being made by the op.

Agreed.

I’m backing down, disarming and stepping away from the thread.
Please do likewise TJ.

Mods – I’m as keen on free speech as the next person but this thread is now 14 pages long and has descended into an increasingly familiar mix of disproportionate outrage, piss taking and endless pedantry in order for some egocentric posters to score spurious points over their perceived rivals.

Will continuation of this thread really do the forum or STW any good? Please close the thread.

alternatively downshep, just don’t open it.

i think there’s enough censorship going down as it is.

“its not what you intend that matters – its how its perceived by others”

Is not the same as

so its acceptable to say offensive things if there is no intent to offend?

Thats the Jim Davidson defense

Go and have a read about authorial intent and reader response theory, then we’ll have a chat.

alternatively downshep, just don’t open it.

Nope, this is STW, you can’t prevent someone from carrying out the constitutional right to be offended!

I thought that was a jokey way of saying (insert the ‘Jim Davison Defence’ phrase of your choice here…)

Where is the REPORT THREAD button please?

I, and many others tend to find TJ’s holier-than-thou patronising method of failing to get his argument across offensive. Perhaps you should take this on board, TJ

Me too, despite being ‘on his side’ in various ‘debates’.

Yaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnn……. bear with me, just up after a night of razzing round the woods on bikes with good company, heavy drinking and rough consensual sex.. now, where’s the ibuprofen?

Elfinsafety – Member 😉
So please, some honesty, eh?

unlike you, Elfin I’m actually all for honesty! so unless you can quote my every post on the deleted thread word for word in context don’t even think about spending hours concocting an elaborate twist on what I actually said!
You, Sue, Ernie and Emsz missed my point entirely, added your own slant on what I was saying then started accusing me of all sorts of nastiness.
I wish the thread was still up as nothing I said was offensive

Ernie – You were/are even worse than Elfin! What you ‘think’ someone else is implying is not necessarily what YOU’VE decided they mean!!

Ernie/Emsz – accusing another person of condoning RAPE for simply accepting that in real life certain phrases are more common than you seem to think is well out of order and you two aught to be ashamed of yourselves

how do you all stand on the word “smash” ?? – you might want to bear in mind, it doesn’t actually mean/imply unconsentual any more than “kick” does?

I Haven’t bothered reading anything more on this thread after Elfins first post and TBH doubt I will.. there are too many bikes needing ridden, beers to be consumed and things needing smashed.

Holy cow, 14 pages??

Instead of me reading the entire lot, could someone please summarise the main points?

Ta!

Perspective check folks.

You would be rather odd if you did not disagree with some other people’s posts/opinions.

To flounce as a result of these reminds me of that couple in Viz, I think they were TV critics?

There is no such thing as Utopia but by and large STW is a good place with good people. If somebody offends you either say your piece or move along.

If TJ was president….

clarification needed.

Would you, as a White man, go up to a Black man you don’t know and say ‘whassup ****’, in the way that some Black people may do with each other?

Think about the context of usage, the situation of power, things like that.

I see what you’re saying, just I think you’ve missed something quite important.

Perspective check folks.

You would be rather odd if you did not disagree with some other people’s posts/opinions.

To flounce as a result of these reminds me of that couple in Viz, I think they were TV critics?

There is no such thing as Utopia but by and large STW is a good place with good people. If somebody offends you either say your piece or move along.

Hear, hear.