What's with the fat cunts crying about being called fat cunts?

I don't think that line in particular is passive aggressive.

If ish were my father, I'd push him down the stairs and save the world from one more douchebag hypocrite fucked up stalker.

Ishmael is one of my least favorite people here. That's why I can't read Moby Dick ever again; Ishmael is the only character that doesn't die.
 
Ishmael is one of my least favorite people here. That's why I can't read Moby Dick ever again; Ishmael is the only character that doesn't die.

He dies if you set the book on fire and throw holy water at it. Pretty sure that's how you kill creepy old things.
 
I agree with much of this, and I make that same distinction myself in deciding not to call women fat. BUT...here's an inverse example, and I think it's relatively comparable: In our society, we expect men to earn healthy livings and women either to do the same or not to do the same. There is very little implication involved in calling a woman a "loser" (say) for not having a job. There is some societal sting attached to that same designation when applied to men.

Is it fair to call this misandrynistic? I don't think so. That feels like an overstatement. It's a "local" insult using fleeting mores for its sting.

The "fat" thing for women thing feels comparable in quality and nature to this. Agree or no?

Man, I've got to mull that. I see your point.

I think I still differ, though, having watched friends have to help their teen and some preteen daughters deal with body image issues.

Anorexia and bulimia are pretty scary.
 
Man, I've got to mull that. I see your point.

I think I still differ, though, having watched friends have to help their teen and some preteen daughters deal with body image issues.

Anorexia and bulimia are pretty scary.

If only women got fat or were made fun of because of being fat I would agree with you.

But since they don't, I don't.
 
If only women got fat or were made fun of because of being fat I would agree with you.

But since they don't, I don't.

I suppose.

I don't know any anorexic or bulimic boys, though.

Undoubtedly there are some. Seems to me that slur is different for women if its more likely to contribute to a psychological condition for them.
 
I suppose.

I don't know any anorexic or bulimic boys, though.

Undoubtedly there are some. Seems to me that slur is different for women if its more likely to contribute to a psychological condition for them.

I think that has more to do with the haute culture than random insults, though. Anorexia is cool, and healthy bodies are not.
 
I think that has more to do with the haute culture than random insults, though. Anorexia is cool, and healthy bodies are not.

That's heroin chic.

That's not the ninth grade girl who is discovering she's not petite.
 
I suppose.

I don't know any anorexic or bulimic boys, though.

Undoubtedly there are some. Seems to me that slur is different for women if its more likely to contribute to a psychological condition for them.
Four statements. Rate them on severity:

"I am not usually attracted to overweight people."
"I am not usually attracted to Mexican people."
"I am not usually attracted to unemployed people."
"I am not usually attracted to people with bad skin."
 
That's heroin chic.

That's not the ninth grade girl who is discovering she's not petite.

I think it applies to all girls with body issues. It's one thing when some boy says you're fat, but it's altogether different when every woman that the media deems "beautiful" is bonier than a hungry flounder. All people (not just girls) emulate the features and styles that society views as ideal. The difference between girls and boys is that boys want to be muscular, and girls want to be skeletal.
 
I think it applies to all girls with body issues. It's one thing when some boy says you're fat, but it's altogether different when every woman that the media deems "beautiful" is bonier than a hungry flounder. All people (not just girls) emulate the features and styles that society views as ideal. The difference between girls and boys is that boys want to be muscular, and girls want to be skeletal.

I'm stealing that.
 
How's this whole "Guys discussing how women feel about being called fat" going for you males? Well? It seems to be going well.
 
Four statements. Rate them on severity:

"I am not usually attracted to overweight people."
"I am not usually attracted to Mexican people."
"I am not usually attracted to unemployed people."
"I am not usually attracted to people with bad skin."

I don't know that attraction makes the point. For example, I tend to not be attracted to blondes and I tend not to be attracted to women with large breasts.

Word choice matters, too.

From more to least offensive.

1. I don't normally hire spics.
2. I don't normally hire Mexican people.
3. I don't normally hire fat cunts.
4. I don't normally hire overweight people.
5. I don't normally hire people with bad skin.
 
I think it applies to all girls with body issues. It's one thing when some boy says you're fat, but it's altogether different when every woman that the media deems "beautiful" is bonier than a hungry flounder. All people (not just girls) emulate the features and styles that society views as ideal. The difference between girls and boys is that boys want to be muscular, and girls want to be skeletal.

I can buy that.
 
Four statements. Rate them on severity:

"I am not usually attracted to overweight people."
"I am not usually attracted to Mexican people."
"I am not usually attracted to unemployed people."
"I am not usually attracted to people with bad skin."

My protesting of the term isn't about being attracted to someone so I don't find this example to be applicable. What would be more on par with my point would be choose which one of these sentences isn't bigotry:

"All black men hate to work."
"All people over the age of 60 are worthless."
"All Muslims want to kill non-believers."
"All women who are above a size 10 are fat cunts"

Are there levels of being a bigot? Yes, of course. Does it make it ok even if it's not a high-level offense? No, it shouldn't be ok.
 
I don't know that attraction makes the point. For example, I tend to not be attracted to blondes and I tend not to be attracted to women with large breasts.

Word choice matters, too.

From more to least offensive.

1. I don't normally hire spics.
2. I don't normally hire Mexican people.
3. I don't normally hire fat cunts.
4. I don't normally hire overweight people.
5. I don't normally hire people with bad skin.
Fair enough. I'd say, then, that there is no difference between 1 and 2; saying you don't usually hire Mexicans amounts to uttering a perjorative about Mexican people.

Whereas: there is a world of difference between 3 and 4. The difference is contained in the word "cunts." There is no meaning of the word "fat" that amounts to the word woman, without YOU (the speaker) locating it on women. Without that female-specific identifier, 3 and 4 would read just about the same as 5--and carry nowhere near the freight of the first two.

Agreed?
 
My protesting of the term isn't about being attracted to someone so I don't find this example to be applicable. What would be more on par with my point would be choose which one of these sentences isn't bigotry:

"All black men hate to work."
"All people over the age of 60 are worthless."
"All Muslims want to kill non-believers."
"All women who are above a size 10 are fat cunts"

Are there levels of being a bigot? Yes, of course. Does it make it ok even if it's not a high-level offense? No, it shouldn't be ok.

Sure, but your fourth example differs from the first three rhetorically. Your first three read "All A are B." Your fourth reads, "All A who are also B are C." That's a crucial difference: it changes the statement from universal to local.

I want to say again, it doesn't make it any less hurtful to hear. I am simply saying it does not seem to rise to the kind of freighted statement that usually characterizes bigotry or racism.
 
Fair enough. I'd say, then, that there is no difference between 1 and 2; saying you don't usually hire Mexicans amounts to uttering a perjorative about Mexican people.

Whereas: there is a world of difference between 3 and 4. The difference is contained in the word "cunts." There is no meaning of the word "fat" that amounts to the word woman, without YOU (the speaker) locating it on women. Without that female-specific identifier, 3 and 4 would read just about the same as 5--and carry nowhere near the freight of the first two.

Agreed?

I think the pejorative matters because it expresses malice. It's bigotry plus.

Other than that, yes.
 
Sure, but your fourth example differs from the first three rhetorically. Your first three read "All A are B." Your fourth reads, "All A who are also B are C." That's a crucial difference: it changes the statement from universal to local.

I want to say again, it doesn't make it any less hurtful to hear. I am simply saying it does not seem to rise to the kind of freighted statement that usually characterizes bigotry or racism.

It's not about hearing it, Sonny, it's about who accepts it. Whether my feelings are hurt or not isn't the issue. My feelings are hurt by a lot of things.

It's about a community who will race after a certain poster bearing lit torches for confessing her own racism but those lit torches aren't turned in any other direction when you get men calling women fat cunts. Forget that it's me, we all get I can stand up for myself. It's you guys, you who stand there and not say a word. That's what the problem is.
 
A woman giving sonny the old 'it's not me, it's you' routine.

He's used to it.
 
I probably should be married first, I give the best "it's not me it's you, you stupid mofo" speech very well when I'm married.
 
Back
Top