Page 27 of 82

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:13 am UTC
by Chai Kovsky
Yuri2356 wrote:Also, I think 'hystery' would look nicer. Has the plus of sounding the same as the word it replaces.

I read that as "history of the uterus."

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:19 am UTC
by Yuri2356
Chai Kovsky wrote:
Yuri2356 wrote:Also, I think 'hystery' would look nicer. Has the plus of sounding the same as the word it replaces.

I read that as "history of the uterus."

Exactly as planned.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:41 am UTC
by Quixotess
Again, I don't really get how hystery is different from herstory in terms of "trendy labels for really simple things" except that you think yours is clever.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:43 am UTC
by JayDee
Quixotess wrote:I'm sure that when people use the word "herstory" they're perfectly aware that "history" isn't actually a contraction of his story. We're not stupid, you know. But history as we're taught it has indeed been the story of [white] men, so...it's just a way of making a point with wordplay.
Making a point with wordplay is one (good) thing. Telling people they aren't allowed to spell / use a word as it thus far has because someone has decided it's offensive or what not is something else entirely, well worthy of rants such as the one mentioned by Yuri2356.

Quixotess wrote:I don't understand. If it's generally regarded as inclusive and does not have the English problem of also being restrictive, why is it not translated as "human" or "person"? Or is it "generally regarded as inclusive" in the sameway "chairman" and "mailman" are "generally regarded as inclusive" which is to say, not by me.
Assuming you're asking about why 'man' is used over 'person' or 'human', personally, I'll only replace an incredibly common monosyllable with a multi-syllabic word at gunpoint (or as meter requires.) I suspect that trying to make that kind of change is working against the usual trends of linguistic progress, but I'm half guessing there.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:49 am UTC
by Quixotess
JayDee wrote:Telling people they aren't allowed to spell / use a word as it thus far has because someone has decided it's offensive or what not is something else entirely, well worthy of rants such as the one mentioned by Yuri2356.

Er? The statement was that the teacher wrote it on the board. zomg oppression?

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:58 am UTC
by JayDee
Oh, I was just saying that both happen, and one of them is worth ranting about.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:27 am UTC
by Chai Kovsky
Quixotess wrote:I don't understand. If it's generally regarded as inclusive and does not have the English problem of also being restrictive, why is it not translated as "human" or "person"? Or is it "generally regarded as inclusive" in the sameway "chairman" and "mailman" are "generally regarded as inclusive" which is to say, not by me.
Assuming you're asking about why 'man' is used over 'person' or 'human', personally, I'll only replace an incredibly common monosyllable with a multi-syllabic word at gunpoint (or as meter requires.) I suspect that trying to make that kind of change is working against the usual trends of linguistic progress, but I'm half guessing there.[/quote]
The problem is that, because it's a translation, the meaning will get screwed up. Imagine you were reading a translation of the Lysistrata by Aristophanes, a comedy wherein the women withhold sex from the men to stop the men from causing wars. If there's a line saying "and all men trembled," how the hell will you know whether the men were trembling and the women weren't, or every single person was trembling? Whether you like the word "men" to be considered inclusively or not, it still has problems. A distinction between men and people is useful because it clarifies meaning. Which, y'know, a translation ought to do.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:53 am UTC
by Belial
Quixotess wrote:Same here. Pronouns are so old that they'll never change anyway.


It's...not really about age, actually. It's more about form-class and structure-class words. The former (nouns, verbs, adjectives) are *really* easy to add to the language. We do it constantly. ("I googled 'emo' on my gnarly PC").

The latter, structure class words, which is to say pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, articles and so forth, are extremely resistant to change.

Probably because we aren't used to thinking about them consciously, because they're not content. They're the words we use to glue the real content (the people who are doing the stuff, the stuff that's getting done, how and where and when the people are doing the stuff and what they're doing it to) together. They're practically linguistic muscle memory. Applying too much conscious thought and effort to them (which is what you'd need to do to add a new one, or use an old one in a radically different way) is like thinking consciously about the way you breathe or walk. It rarely accomplishes much, and mostly just makes you walk and breathe awkwardly for a bit until you manage to stop thinking about it.

This linguistic tangent (which, before someone points it out, I know I've talked about before) brought to you by my wandering brain.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:00 am UTC
by Quixotess
Oh.

Does it happen that the age and the immovability are correlated and both caused by the structure-form-thing?

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:04 am UTC
by Belial
More or less. The structure doesn't change much because of the reasons listed above, and the structure class words are really damn old because they rarely change (though they do occasionally disappear. See also: thee, thou. It's just that, when we lose them, we rarely replace them with anything. We just fill the hole by very slightly repurposing or broadening an existing one.)

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:05 am UTC
by Chai Kovsky
So who's up for the broadening of "they?"

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:11 am UTC
by Belial
What's funny is that most of what I just explained was first introduced to me in an extended essay by a linguist whose name I've forgotten. The thrust of the article was basically "Listen, you're never going to wedge a new structure class word into the language without population-wide electroshock training. And 'he or she' is extremely clunky and will never be used outside of formal writing. So seriously, linguistic purists, just pull the sticks out of your collective asses and recognize that we have a perfectly good pronoun for 'he or she' and it is 'they'. Yes, I realize it's also the third person plural. Sometimes, words have multiple meanings differentiated by context. Cope."

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:17 am UTC
by T-Form
existential_elevator wrote:Everything that ST has said. As far as I'm aware, "man" is from anthropos. The way we use it in english is probably best thought of as a contraction of "human". So, you know, let us not turn our postman into a postperson so soon, or at least with so much bad feeling. Language is in our hands, and it's up to us to change it, really. Perhaps we should chose a more neutral derivation from the stem: I suggest pode. There's a certain ring to having a postpode.

In New Zealand and Australia, "postmen" (regardless of gender) turned into "posties" at some point. I'm not sure when this happened (and it may have been imported from Scotland), but looking at the various other terms that have acquired the -ie ending, I'm pretty sure it wasn't a deliberate change. On the other hand, I reckon these natural changes occured due to the colonial history of NZ/Australia (and Scotland's desire to be independent from England, if relevant); it's easier for language to change in a culture that's removed from the centre of linguistic "authority". Globalisation and increasingly urban societies are both threats to this process - we see these variations of English being reassimilated, just as we see the increasing domination of English over other languages. On the other hand, denser populations and easier global communication allow for the formation of new subcultures that generate their own lexicons, both for clearer communication on specialised topics and to differentiate their culture from the mainstream. I'm not too optimistic about the ability for subcultures to influence mainstream language without the meaning of the words being lost or manipulated, though; even defeating the notion of linguistic authority probably wouldn't do that while there are more subtle forms of manipulation (e.g. in media and advertising) going on. If language could evolve without various institutions and ideologies trying to "preserve" or reshape it, I suspect we'd naturally end up with a somewhat more inclusive language as society becomes more equal/equitable.


I find "herstory" pretty ridiculous, to be honest; if someone uses it without any degree of irony* (or, equivalently, declares that "his story" is the original and literal meaning of "history"), my first guess is that they're either too fanatical or too ignorant to think to research the origin of the word, or even to stop to consider that there might be a reason that the pronunciation doesn't match with the word "his". It's doubly ridiculous when the same people use language that does have unpleasant gendered meanings, connotations, or origins; there are plenty of real problems with gendered language that are more likely to be ignored.


I have three issues with "gender-neutral" pronouns. The first is simple (at least on the surface...); in practice, "hir" often turns into "her" when spoken. The second is that most people who identify as men or women won't consider themselves included by these pronouns; they become third-gender rather than gender-neutral. In some respects that can be a good thing, but it does mean that they aren't really the unifying and inclusive terms they're sometimes intended to be. The third problem is related to the second; while third-gender pronouns can be a positive aspect of identity, particularly for intersex and trans people, they can also be used as a weapon against intersex or trans people who primarily identify as women or men - a way to say "you're not a real woman/man" without appearing openly antagonistic to others.

* I'm aware that history does indeed tend to focus on men and on (stereotypically) masculine things, and that should be acknowledged. I don't feel that the term "herstory" does that in an effective manner when it's used seriously.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:18 am UTC
by Quixotess
Well, the other solution for that would be, you know, to cope with "he" as a neuter singlular pronoun.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am UTC
by Belial
Quixotess wrote:Well, the other solution for that would be, you know, to cope with "he" as a neuter singlular pronoun.


If that was in reference to my post: the author rejected it as lending itself to too much bias. For much the same reason as you do. He listed it among the non-workable and/or unsatisfactory solutions.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:32 am UTC
by Quixotess
Belial wrote:If that was in reference to my post:

Twas.

Belial wrote:the author rejected it as lending itself to too much bias. For much the same reason as you do. He listed it among the non-workable and/or unsatisfactory solutions.

*noddity* I'm just always interested in which arguments will convince which groups. That one would only work for people who already rejected he. Chai's argument earlier might be a good example for those who haven't.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:44 am UTC
by JayDee
T-Form wrote:In New Zealand and Australia, "postmen" (regardless of gender) turned into "posties" at some point. I'm not sure when this happened (and it may have been imported from Scotland), but looking at the various other terms that have acquired the -ie ending, I'm pretty sure it wasn't a deliberate change.
That's just an informal shortening. Rather common, especially with names and such.

I'd be willing to bet it's still 'postman' on their job description (Unless it's Communication Delivery Facilitator.)

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:18 am UTC
by T-Form
Yeah, it probably is. I'd say that's because job descriptions are considered formal language, so "informal" terms tend to be excluded. You can't really have that separation without some source of linguistic authority, which is why I feel that too much reliance on dictionaries and tradition can hold us back, making both natural and semi-artificial development of gender-neutral terms and language more difficult than they need to be.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:23 am UTC
by ADXCKGuy
I hate singular “they”. Bad enough that when I address “you” you don’t know how many I mean. And, um. Off-topic.

Uh...

Girl power! Yeah!

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:54 pm UTC
by Yuri2356
ADXCKGuy wrote:I hate singular “they”. Bad enough that when I address “you” you don’t know how many I mean.

I'll add resurrecting "thou" to the agenda too.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:28 pm UTC
by Alder
ADXCKGuy wrote:I hate singular “they”. Bad enough that when I address “you” you don’t know how many I mean.

In Scotland, we have the slang "youse" for plural "you". ("Hey! Youse lot over there!")

It's really bad grammar though. :D

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:18 am UTC
by setzer777
Alder26 wrote:
ADXCKGuy wrote:I hate singular “they”. Bad enough that when I address “you” you don’t know how many I mean.

In Scotland, we have the slang "youse" for plural "you". ("Hey! Youse lot over there!")

It's really bad grammar though. :D


I'm not a huge fan of a lot of our southern traditions (Texas resident here), but I do like that we have the word "ya'll".

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:22 am UTC
by EmptySet
On a slightly related note, my university had something called the "Wom*n's Department", which I personally found ridiculous. Apparently the female population agrees with me, because I heard several girls comment that said department clearly wasn't for them as they were women, rather than "wom*n". Mind you, it probably didn't help that many women complained that much of the Wom*n's Department was disturbingly misandric and more concerned with pushing an extreme ideology than actually helping women.

Anyway, that kind of thing may be one reason some people are a bit hostile towards "feminist wordplay", as it has been put - in some circles it has become associated with extremism and/or misandry. There may also be an association with explicitly pejorative wordplay (eg. "evilution", "Dumbocrat", "Duh-merican") which is sometimes used in political discourse. Also, as was commented earlier, removing/changing a syllable because it looks vaguely male-related may also be perceived as a "kill it with fire" response towards anything associated with males or masculinity, which can result in the term being seen as hostile.

On a different tangent, are terms like policeman, chairman, etc. really a problem? I mean, where I come from, male police officers are called policemen, and females policewomen. I'm fairly sure that in formal documentation they're referred to as "officers" (or constables or whatever their rank is). Indeed, in newspaper reports you often see phrases like "...was apprehended by two male officers and one female officer", which are very explicit about using a gender-neutral name for the job itself. Same goes for chairpeople and spokespeople, where the position itself is referred to by the gender-neutral "chairperson" and the person occupying it is called a chairwoman if they are of the appropriate gender. Now, obviously if people are using "chairman" when they should be using "chairperson", that's a problem, but in my experience most places use the gender-neutral terms where appropriate.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:15 am UTC
by Belial
Mind you, it probably didn't help that many women complained that much of the Wom*n's Department was disturbingly misandric and more concerned with pushing an extreme ideology than actually helping women.

Anyway, that kind of thing may be one reason some people are a bit hostile towards "feminist wordplay", as it has been put - in some circles it has become associated with extremism and/or misandry.


Keep in mind that most feminist rhetoric has been, at some point or another, accused of being extreme and misandric. The fact that some kids on a college campus reported it to be so doesn't really mean anything.

Likewise, saying anything is "associated with extremism and misandry" is pretty much just saying it's...painted with the same brush as the rest of feminism.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:23 pm UTC
by EmptySet
I'm aware that feminism in general has suffered that sort of accusation. I'm not saying that the department does have these problems, necessarily. What I'm saying is that I experienced young, educated career women in a typically male-dominated field, who were otherwise perfectly fine with the feminist movement, complaining that the "Wom*n's Department" were too extreme; and that if other people had similar experiences, it's possible that they might come to associate the use of such language with a problematic kind of extremism - perhaps even if they don't regard feminism is general as threatening. To be clear, I'm not saying that this impression is correct or justified at all - merely that it could occur and thus contribute to negative feelings about terms like "herstory".

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:24 pm UTC
by SecondTalon
Alder26 wrote:
ADXCKGuy wrote:I hate singular “they”. Bad enough that when I address “you” you don’t know how many I mean.

In Scotland, we have the slang "youse" for plural "you". ("Hey! Youse lot over there!")

It's really bad grammar though. :D


Scotland is New Jersey?

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 4:09 pm UTC
by sophyturtle
EmptySet wrote: who were otherwise perfectly fine with the feminist movement, complaining that the "Wom*n's Department" were too extreme

The idea of 'perfectly fine' strikes me as 'perfectly fine as long as I don't have to deal with it'. In my experience these people are perfectly fine until they have to in any way interact with it, then because any change or difference can be seen it is 'too extreme'.
When I was finding myself as a woman, it was important to me to have ways of defining myself that did not include 'man' or were not in the diminutive form. After some work with it I mentally changed it from 'wo*man* would be nothing without *man*' to 'man is just woman with less wow'.
Still, My daily planner is We'Moon, and I still feel affection for womyn kind.

In high school I appreciated the word play of my history teacher, because it drove me crazy have an entire class for dead white men who oppressed/killed/raped people until they had full control and could write the books. (In middle school we had debates about Columbus, and I got so angry when I was talking about how the natives he found were regularly killed and raped I started shaking.) I know that 'history' is just the word we have for it, but if it went down different it could have easily been 'herstory' and it was nice for one day to consider that as a way to enter into the womyn's movement in US history. (Yes, he did that spelling as part of the week, because changing words to make a point is something people did. It helped people who could not see the world was literally defined for men see it, or at least that is the goal sometimes.)

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 4:35 pm UTC
by Insignificant Deifaction
a woman without her man is nothing

Punctuate the sentence.
Try one: A woman, without her man, is nothing.
Try two: A woman: Without her, man is nothing.

;) There you go.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 5:15 pm UTC
by Chai Kovsky
I_D: I adore that. It is made of the fruit of the awesome tree.

Re: "Wom*n's Department:" I'm certainly not "kill it with fire," but I think it's a bit silly. Could someone explain how these things, along with the other wordplay (like "womyn" and "herstory") advance the feminist cause? Both sides seem to treat them as red herrings from what I perceive as more Serious Business. When women are getting 70 cents on the dollar, are words of dubious etymology really worth arguing over?

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 5:34 pm UTC
by Rinsaikeru
I find them silly myself, but I don't get much bothered by them when they're used. Yes words are powerful, but it's not just a matter of replacing the word with something with dubious etymology but great pun factor.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 5:38 pm UTC
by SecondTalon
I suppose the argument is that if it makes one person out of a thousand stop and think for a moment ("Herstory instead of History? What, are they trying to say that only men make history and...ooooohhhhhhhhhhhh") it's worth putting up with the silliness of it?

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 5:49 pm UTC
by Rinsaikeru
In that regard I can see that it has a point--though I wonder how often that actually happens.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 5:58 pm UTC
by Chai Kovsky
I'm trying to imagine a circumstance in which the "herstory" thing alone would be effective. If you have removed your head from your ass sufficiently to even acknowledge that history is about the victorious white man, then you could probably figure that out from someone mentioning "history is about the victorious white man." If you're ig'nant, you're just going to whine about how "Herstory" represents the excesses of feminism. I don't really see a borderline case where the wordplay would help someone to see the light. These things seem to me to be feminist in-jokes. That's cool with me, I like an in-joke as much as the next girl, but let's admit that that's what they are, not powerful tools in the arsenal of feminism for eradicating teh stoopid.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:09 pm UTC
by Jessica
The way I see it, you may not like using alternate spellings, or think they're stupid. That's fine. You don't have to use them. But they are used. Some people like to use then to separate themselves from others. Some people use it as a tool.

And, in the end, why should we stop people using a tool? I mean, sure you think it's stupid, but I'm sure some people think "take back the night" rallies are stupid. Some people think women studies are stupid. If we stop using tools because someone thinks they're stupid, then what do we have left?

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:53 pm UTC
by setzer777
Jessica wrote:And, in the end, why should we stop people using a tool? I mean, sure you think it's stupid, but I'm sure some people think "take back the night" rallies are stupid. Some people think women studies are stupid. If we stop using tools because someone thinks they're stupid, then what do we have left?


That's true, and I don't think it's right to dismiss someone simply because they use "womyn", "herstory", etc. However, one thing that does make it very hard for me not to dismiss the person is if they use a lot of derogatory misspellings like "rethuglicans", "Amerikkka", etc. It just makes the whole discussion feel so schoolyard.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:58 am UTC
by gmalivuk
Chai Kovsky wrote:I know people sometimes dislike the fact that "woman" has "man" in it, thus delineating "woman" as the other. But if the words were switched around, do you think we would gripe about "man" (females) being the incomplete version of "woman" (males)?

If we do consider the etymology, which is what you're advocating in other cases, the central fact is that the part of the word that used to simply mean "person" came also to mean "male person", when the wer- prefix was dropped. In other words, it was sort of linguistically agreed that there was no need for specifying that the person you were talking about was male, since if he weren't, we'd have said so.

So it's another case of male-as-default, female-as-different sort of thing.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 4:19 am UTC
by Chai Kovsky
Jessica wrote:The way I see it, you may not like using alternate spellings, or think they're stupid. That's fine. You don't have to use them. But they are used. Some people like to use then to separate themselves from others. Some people use it as a tool.

And, in the end, why should we stop people using a tool? I mean, sure you think it's stupid, but I'm sure some people think "take back the night" rallies are stupid. Some people think women studies are stupid. If we stop using tools because someone thinks they're stupid, then what do we have left?

The point I was making is that I don't see them as tools, but let's accept that they are. I did not anywhere in that post say that people ought to stop using them, only that I thought they were silly. I think it's important that people be able to have a point at which they won't accept a given plank of the platform. That was particularly important for the womanists, for instance, who had a point at which they did not apologize for the movement. Certainly not a perfect analogy, but the point is that they were willing and able to point out what they perceived as flaws with the feminist status quo. In fact, I would argue that feminism is bolstered by people using different tactics. You might try to accomplish it through wordplay and I through "take back the night" rallies. I don't think we should be wholly uncritical of every tool in the toolbox. Respectful, yes, in the sense that no feminist says "kill it with fire!" to any tool in another feminist's box. But not uncritical.

gmalivuk wrote:
Chai Kovsky wrote:I know people sometimes dislike the fact that "woman" has "man" in it, thus delineating "woman" as the other. But if the words were switched around, do you think we would gripe about "man" (females) being the incomplete version of "woman" (males)?

If we do consider the etymology, which is what you're advocating in other cases, the central fact is that the part of the word that used to simply mean "person" came also to mean "male person", when the wer- prefix was dropped. In other words, it was sort of linguistically agreed that there was no need for specifying that the person you were talking about was male, since if he weren't, we'd have said so.

So it's another case of male-as-default, female-as-different sort of thing.

That was part of the first point I was making, albeit incoherently. I recognize and know that the reality of it is man-as-default, woman-as-different. I was just trying to think of what it would have been like if the words were switch around and decided that, either way, women would still be getting the short end of the linguistic stick.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:27 am UTC
by Belial
Chai Kovsky wrote:That was part of the first point I was making, albeit incoherently. I recognize and know that the reality of it is man-as-default, woman-as-different. I was just trying to think of what it would have been like if the words were switch around and decided that, either way, women would still be getting the short end of the linguistic stick.


Yeah, pretty much. By putting one in terms of the other (rather than both in terms of a third term, or both unrelated words), you invite the listener (and the speaker...really, anyone who interacts with the language) to build a hierarchy between the two terms, and those types of hierarchies tend to come together in a particular way given how our society is set up currently (I really like parentheses).

Re: Placeholder. Do not post.

Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:05 am UTC
by Pizzashark
nightlina wrote:Personally I think the word "feminism" has a bad slur on it and am happy just with "equality". Feminism, to me, implies that women should stand higher than men - to which I disagree as I feel both men and women are equally capable of being successful in just about anything they do.


I always wondered about that, too. I used to think feminist = feminazi, but learned better later. Any idea why it became a word associated with misandry instead of just equal rights? Has this already been talked about in this thread? I've been flipping through the pages but it seems to branch off in a hundred different directions... is there a search function for individual threads? :(

Re: Placeholder. Do not post.

Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:33 am UTC
by SecondTalon
Some Asshole wrote:I always wondered about that, too. I used to think feminist = feminazi, but learned better later. Any idea why it became a word associated with misandry instead of just equal rights? Has this already been talked about in this thread? I've been flipping through the pages but it seems to branch off in a hundred different directions... is there a search function for individual threads? :(
If you're using subsilver, it's the search box in the bottom left. I think it's the search box in the lower top right if you're using prosilver.