SPLIT TOPIC: Are all chicas crazy?

Mongrel_500 wrote: All I have to say is "ha"
That chick is crazy...

All chicas are crazy.

Idlewild wrote: [quote=Mongrel_500]All I have to say is "ha"
That chick is crazy...

All chicas are crazy.

what? care to explain that one, or is it just casual misogyny?

Nothing misogynistic about it. All women are crazy.

That sounds like textbook misogyny to me. However, had you said everyone is crazy I might agree with you.

If I'm correct mysogyny means hatred towards women...how does saying they're crazy, in a joking or non-joking way, however you wish to take it espouse hatred?

Main Entry: mi·sog·y·ny Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: mdotted schwaprimarystresssäjschwanemacron, mimacrprimarystress-, -ni
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -es
Etymology: Greek misogynia, from miso- 2mis- + gynemacron woman + -ia -y
: a hatred of women

apollonia666 wrote: [quote=daver][quote=apollonia666]Um, what, precisely, was so shrill about the way she asked about that remark?

If we are talking about the Ntozake, then holy crap did you _watch_ the video???

If we are talking about the the other crap then I have no fucking idea.

Ah. I see... I thought sterling2000 was referring to sweet_tea's question about Idlewild's "all women are crazy" crap, but it appears daver was probably instead talking about Ntozake's hollering at the reporter. My mistake.

Nonetheless, this stuff about all women being crazy IS misogynistic and dumb.

So let me get this straight, and please point out my wrong doing. I make a general comment that all women are crazy, and anyone with a sense of humor can see that it's said in a joking way. But five other posts specifically say the lady in question "crazy" and "bitch" and even a combo of the two and from my prospective mean. Are they just telling it like it is then?

oh, that old one. since i fail to see the "joke" implicit in the single sentence post "all women are crazy", it must be my problem for not having "a sense of humor". sorry, i'm almost-but-not-quite that self-hating. your post is bullshit.

are all people on the internet prone to making sweeping generalizations?

sweet tea wrote: oh, that old one. since i fail to see the "joke" implicit in the single sentence post "all women are crazy", it must be my problem for not having "a sense of humor". sorry, i'm almost-but-not-quite that self-hating. your post is bullshit.

That "old one" wasn't my point (valid as I think it is about it being a joke) . I asked why I'm being singled out when five other posts have the words "crazy" and "bitch" used as a character reference to a specific woman. Or maybe those terms in those posts are being used to remind people that the Muddy Waters person is indeed a woman who should be chastised as a woman who is a bitch and crazy and even crazy bitch instead of just saying she acted like a pretty rude person.

And hey if you or anyone else fails to see it, tough.

And why is this a split topic?

The Muddy Waters person being a crazy bitch has nothing to do with her gender, race, color or creed. Rather, it simply has to do with her crazy bitchiness.

The term bitch, at least as far as I know, when applied to a human being is usually referring to a woman.

Not in my neighborhood.

Uh huh. Whatever you say.

Now! I want to know why this was split from the Muddy Waters topic.

Besides, I don't think the issue here was ever the bitchiness of the psycho in question, but rather your assertion the _all_ women were crazy. Surely you can see the distinction?

This.

daver wrote: Besides, I don't think the issue here was ever the bitchiness of the psycho in question, but rather your assertion the _all_ women were crazy. Surely you can see the distinction?

And it was derailing our mockery of all things Ntozake.

Not really. I could see if people called her psycho, asshole, nut job , etc. However, when I'm called out for making a quip about women being crazy as a group and I see five other posts saying the same thing about an individual woman, sorry, I don't see the why I should be called a misogynist and not be able to bring up others who say the same thing and are not called on the carpet. I mean my comment is being taken seriously obviously and the only reason I see it is because I applied "crazy" to a group and not a named individual who everyone seems to dislike.

Carnivore wrote: This.

[quote=daver]Besides, I don't think the issue here was ever the bitchiness of the psycho in question, but rather your assertion the _all_ women were crazy. Surely you can see the distinction?

And it was derailing our mockery of all things Ntozake.

Very good.

Again. I want to know why the topic was split.

Idlewild wrote: Again. I want to know why the topic was split.

OK, I'll take stab. Because they always split it when the topic diverges. The original topic was the nonsense at the Muddy Waters bar. You starting a connected by divergent topic with the all women are crazy thing. Comments about each topic were being interspersed and caused at least one verifiable episode of confusion. Hence, a split.

Your objection?

Idlewild wrote: Again. I want to know why the topic was split.

Because none of this has anything to do with Muddy Waters or Well Lounge, or Ntozake or the video posted by the OP, and it was killing what had been a fun thread up to that point.

daver wrote: [quote=Idlewild]Again. I want to know why the topic was split.

OK, I'll take stab. Because they always split it when the topic diverges. The original topic was the nonsense at the Muddy Waters bar. You starting a connected by divergent topic with the all women are crazy thing. Comments about each topic were being interspersed and caused at least one verifiable episode of confusion. Hence, a split.

Your objection?

My objection is that my quip was in context, maybe not direct but certainly in flow with the Muddy Waters posts. If after someone wants to label me a misogynist or as insensitive or dumb or whatever after reading the whole thing then that's their opinion and I take the lumps and bumps. However,, when I point out other posts that use the same if not harsher language to back up my argument and the posts are not in the split topic for people to see and make a judgment call , then it is a inadvertent denial of my defense.

Carnivore wrote: [quote=Idlewild]Again. I want to know why the topic was split.

Because none of this has anything to do with Muddy Waters or Well Lounge, or Ntozake or the video posted by the OP, and it was killing what had been a fun thread up to that point.

Then the moderator's statement calling my statement dumb should have been moved along with it.

Idlewild wrote: My objection is that my quip was in context, maybe not direct but certainly in flow with the Muddy Waters posts. If after someone wants to label me a misogynist or as insensitive or dumb or whatever after reading the whole thing then that's their opinion and I take the lumps and bumps. However,, when I point out other posts that use the same if not harsher language to back up my argument and the posts are not in the split topic for people to see and make a judgment call , then it is a inadvertent denial of my defense.

Eh. After careful consideration I would rate that a valid point. FWIW.

it isn't a question of the harshness of the language. it's a question of the difference between condemning a particular person for her behavior versus making blanket statements about an entire group. try substituting race for gender here.

now, the rectitude of using gender-specific insults is a different matter -- one worthy of discussion, but hardly the only concern here.

So what you're saying is that describing her as crazy and bitch is alright because her behavior warrants that. Maybe I'm crazy, maybe momma didn't bring me up right, but quite frankly saying that "Chicas are crazy", I don't see the misogyny. If I had said all women are whores, sluts, bitches, something in that genre, joking or not, then yeah that's a pretty bold faced hatred of women. As far as that race thing goes...now who's going by "that old line"? Prove your point with the words and subjects given.

okay, if you don't feel that calling people crazy constitutes hatred, then i will drop misogynist and stick to good old sexist. fair?

the "race thing" i stand by.

I'm crazy.......CRAZY FOR CHICKENS!!!!! /

Idlewild wrote: So what you're saying is that describing her as crazy and bitch is alright because her behavior warrants that. Maybe I'm crazy, maybe momma didn't bring me up right, but quite frankly saying that "Chicas are crazy", I don't see the misogyny. If I had said all women are whores, sluts, bitches, something in that genre, joking or not, then yeah that's a pretty bold faced hatred of women. As far as that race thing goes...now who's going by "that old line"? Prove your point with the words and subjects given.

What does it matter if it's bold faced or not? Your misogynistic,chauvinistic statement was, but even if you had been sly (being clever my mom would have called it), any remotely intelligent person would have picked up on it.

There is no way to characterize all women as any particular thing along these lines and not sound like some sort of misogynist.

This is obvious.

Let's try predicate logic:

All people are crazy.
All women are people.
Therefore all women are crazy.

No two people are equally crazy.
Some people are women.
Therefore some women are crazier than others.

I don't know about this "all" business.... but most chicas like chicos, and that's pretty fuckin' crazy.