welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Feminism because why not make a thread for it?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 174, 175, 176 ... 314, 315, 316  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10811
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd never heard it until Tat started using it. A quick google search turns up:
A website for a video game named Dudebro My Shit Is Fucked Up So I Got to Shoot/Slice You 2: It's Straight-Up Dawg Time.
a definition on Urban Dictionary.
A Sirius radio show that refers to their audience as dudebros, which spawned a website for dudebros.
A pretty uninformative tumblr tag.
Finally, something relevant... a Feministe piece, another piece (I don't know who they are), and a Shakesville post.

Maybe I'm the only one that had never heard it, but it took me a bit to even wrap my head around what it meant.

So, there are a couple of points of contention for me. First, you say "if feminists are going to be making terms like this," but... did feminists make this term? Or did they acquire it? It may not have a huge impact on the moral regard, but we should start on an honest footing. Second, you say, "using derogatory language is never okay." I derogate people all the time. Usually for poor use of logic, or for misrepresenting psychology or mental health issues, or for being unnecessarily rude. I'm okay with that. It may not be nice, but being derogatory isn't, on its face, a strictly feminist/privilege issue. I'm also not sure this is a necessary step in your argument, either, since you could have stopped at "gendered pejorative."

Anyway, with all that said I think you're right. It's a gendered noun used to mock men who behave in ways that are viewed as inappropriate, and to make implications about them (their intelligence, their views on women, their sobriety, etc). I can't think of a redeeming reason to use the term off the top of my head. Maybe someone else can.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bart



Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 1572

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

First, yes, "Dudebro" is derogatory. So is calling someone a sexist/racist person. So, just because a term is derogatory shouldn't mean it should be scrapped from our vocabulary. It might mean that it should be used with care, but some people (or at least some positions that they hold) deserve to be attacked.

It is also a gendered word, but as it is used to denote a subclass of sexists which are almost exclusively males, which makes it (to me) acceptable. A counterargument to this could be that a word like "slut" is also used almost exclusively for females, but there are differences between the two. A term like slut is used to reinforce inequality. Behaviour that as a man would get you high-fives gets you labelled a slut as a woman. So while the word is gendered, it's only because the behaviour it describes if found unacceptable in only one sex. If there were lots of women acting like "dudebros" and weren't called out on it because they were women, than it would be a problem to use "dudebro" as a gendered derogatory term.

Another point was that it's condescending. Here tastes might differ, but I have no problem being condescending to such people.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Smooshie



Joined: 24 Jan 2013
Posts: 141
Location: NYC

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I already established that it's not nearly as severe as "slut". It's just another gendered derogatory word. Even if it were not gendered (which is what sends it down the road of hate speech from mockery), derogatory words are... well, derogatory.

It doesn't matter who made the term, what matters to me is who uses it. A racial slur created by one group and adopted by another is still a racial slur.

Neither condescension nor derogation are, on the whole, good for a progressive movement because they are petty, aggravating, and don't do anybody any good. The only perceived benefit is a momentary boost in self-esteem of the detractor. Besides that, even if everybody does it, that's the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Just because you (and everybody else) do it doesn't mean it's not rude and/or offensive. I'm quite the abrasive prick, but I'm trying to frame this in the context of a progressive philosophy. "But I'm angry!" doesn't really justify... anything derogatory, really.

Dogen wrote:
I can't think of a redeeming reason to use the term off the top of my head. Maybe someone else can.


I sure hope not.

Bart wrote:
First, yes, "Dudebro" is derogatory. So is calling someone a sexist/racist person. So, just because a term is derogatory shouldn't mean it should be scrapped from our vocabulary.

I think the terms sexist/racist have gone from pointing out legitimate flaws in rhetoric, ideology, and behavior and become flat-out character assassination. This is more of a problem with society and the usage of the word than its inherent meaning. I do not think you can say "his message is, overall, dudebro" and be taken seriously in academia. Maybe that's a fault with academia, who knows? I'm skeptical of that notion, anyway. It seems to be a derogatory term first and a descriptor second, as opposed to sexist/racist, which are both primarily descriptors. Why else would "dudebro" exist when there are already terms to describe such behaviors, arguments, and thought processes? It is shorthand for a certain set of behaviors et al. that, unlike calling something racist/sexist (unfairly biased, prejudiced, discriminatory), you are saying you don't like.

Quote:
It might mean that it should be used with care, but some people (or at least some positions that they hold) deserve to be attacked.


That is disturbing, and it is neither progressive nor very nice. Under what circumstances does anybody deserve to be attacked, pray tell? Is this an objective truth, or your opinion? Because if it is the latter, than your argument comes out of spite rather than reason, and I therefore have no reason to take it as anything other than angry words.
_________________
If at first you don't succeed [in persuading or explaining something to me], then try and try again.

I love you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3576
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:09 pm    Post subject: Gosh, Sam playing dumb again, who'd a thunk it? Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
Thy Brilliance wrote:
Dogen wrote:
Quote:
As for the actual argument, you are asking me to quantify something that is very difficult to quantify over text, or even data.

We didn't ask you to do anything. You brought up blue collar workers. You made claims about what they could and couldn't do. Then we asked you to support those claims with evidence. If you don't have evidence, you should stop making unsupported claims.



Dogen wrote:
Quote:
I've seen neglected kids with my own eyes. That's how I know I'm right.

You don't need me to convince you, just take a look around once in a while; go to some slums and see it for yourself.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't float my boat (nor should it for anyone who wants to be right). It's data or bust.



Dogen, these are contradictory statements.




You seem to have trouble seeing the contradiction.

Allow me to elucidate it for you.

By refusing any form of anecdotal evidence, you make a couple things very clear.

1. You are massive hypocrites for bringing up the cases of your parents in this argument.

2. When I suggest that you investigate your own surroundings AKA do your own original research to discover your ludicrous biases, you essentially refuse, leading me to believe that you are simply lazy, and are arguing for the sake of arguing.


kk

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bart



Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 1572

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anecdotes (=counterexamples) are enough to disprove a theory. So if your theory is that blue collar workers don't have time to raise their children, an example of a blue collar worker who does has the time shows that your theory is false.

Anecdotes are not enough to support a theory. You can't say blue collar workers as a group don't have the time to care for their children, just because you know some who are in that position.

It's not hypocrisy, it is basic reasoning.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Felgraf



Joined: 10 Jul 2012
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bart wrote:
Anecdotes (=counterexamples) are enough to disprove a theory. So if your theory is that blue collar workers don't have time to raise their children, an example of a blue collar worker who does has the time shows that your theory is false.

Anecdotes are not enough to support a theory. You can't say blue collar workers as a group don't have the time to care for their children, just because you know some who are in that position.

It's not hypocrisy, it is basic reasoning.


To expand upon this, one could say Blue Collar workers *often* don't have time to care for their children, in which case a single anecdote does *not* disprove the supposition, since it is not an absolutist statement.

But yeah, as Bart says, just because you can find an Example of X that is Y, does not mean ALL X are Y.

All squares are rectangles.
Not all rectangles are squares.
_________________
"No, but evil is still being --Is having reason-- Being reasonable! Mousie understands? Is always being reason. Is punishing world for not being... Like in head. Is always reason. World should be different, is reason."
-Ed, from Digger
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3316

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regardless, posting a study that you claim supports the idea that blue collar workers don't have the time to properly take care of their children but actually seems to support the idea that white collar workers are the ones spending more time going to and from work doesn't help your case and also, go away thy.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Him



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 4191
Location: On edge

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Smooshie wrote:
Here's something I've been wondering about:

Why is the "dudebro" term ever used? I'd think feminism, which stands for sex and gender equality, would be above that kind of thing. Let me be clear about my issues:
•both "dude" and "bro" are, above all else, gendered nouns
•the term "dudebro" seems to be aimed largely at men, much like "mansplaining"
•even if it's satirical, it is used to make note of a set of disagreeable behaviors and values
•the usage of derogatory language by misogynists/male rights activists/antifeminists/people who are socially conservative does not give feminists or any woman the right to use derogatory language in retaliation
•given that the term "dudebro" is a pejorative (a condescending one at that), we're already running into dangerous territory. Given that it is a gendered pejorative, we can say it is similar to (but not nearly as severe, for the most part, as) the word "slut". That is to say, it is derogatory.
•using derogatory language is never okay, and when you make jokes using derogatory language, those words are added to your lexicon and you are very likely to use them more often. Ergo, using a racial slur in jokes slowly/quickly turns you into a racist, or at the very least, a much less-nice person.
•derogatory language isn't the first step towards hate, it's a giant friggin' leap.

So where am I going with all this? If it's not clear, what I'm saying is, using "dudebro" is a pretty bad thing, and I think if feminists-- or, hell, progressives in general-- are going to be making terms like this, they're going to be doing more harm than good. I think a lot of terminology can and should be thought about in this way. If nothing else, when you engage in an argument with someone, you ought to keep in mind what effect certain words will have on them. Just because they're words created by people who are working for progressive reform doesn't mean they're not without their faults... or right at all.

Don't get me wrong, women (especially feminists) get the short end of the stick when we're talking about derogatory language. I can't believe people actually use "feminazi" but then again, I remember when that was just a phrase we used to use jokingly back when I was in high school... and yet here we are. But even is neither fair nor equal.

I hope I don't sound too much like an asshole or a male rights activist. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong. Laughing


I don't think dudebro or mansplaining are in themselves sexist, and certainly not in the same way as "slut". Or indeed "feminazi" (that particular vernacular had the benefit of being backed by people like Rush Limbaugh). As far as severity is concerned, I think looking who uses a term how, rather than using an etymological definition.

I actually think "mansplaining" has some merit as a concept, it's not the word I would prefer to use to describe that particular sense of entitlement, most times anyway, but I can certainly see what it denotes. I've seen it happen, and indeed probably done it. This is an alright piece from the Atlantic looking at it from a more macro-political standpoint.

There's also this absolutely brilliant article, which drives the point home why it's not just a problem with Ronald Reagan and that I think I've posted before: Why "Mansplaining" Is Still a Problem

But back to my original point, I don't think using "dudebro" as a term is a slippery slope to racism, or I suppose "misandry" in this case.

Firstly derogatory language against women is not bad just because it's mean, it's bad because it is one component of a much larger system of oppression, call it sexism, misogyny or patriarchy, it's still fundamentally the same thing. There is no equivalent "misandrist" matriarchy no matter what MRA's might tell you (and while we're at it, reverse racism? complete nonsense).

Also "dudebro" is a way to describe "Bro-culture". Which is totally also a real thing, and I believe inherently derogatory. What terminology is best when is perhaps an open discussion, but, like I've said, there is a fundamental difference.
_________________
A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10588
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can sum it up in 8 words: Dudebro is the new 'frat boy', only more inclusive.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Samsally



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6514

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Him wrote:
Firstly derogatory language against women is not bad just because it's mean, it's bad because it is one component of a much larger system of oppression, call it sexism, misogyny or patriarchy, it's still fundamentally the same thing. There is no equivalent "misandrist" matriarchy no matter what MRA's might tell you (and while we're at it, reverse racism? complete nonsense).


This is basically what I was gunna say, but Him beat me to it.
_________________
Samsally the GrayAce
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Felgraf



Joined: 10 Jul 2012
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
I can sum it up in 8 words: Dudebro is the new 'frat boy', only more inclusive.


Perhaps, but that's not necessarily a point in dudebro's favor. Since frat boys *can* actually, apparently, be pretty cool and *non*-discriminating, too.

Like this frat that is helping pay/raise money for a trans member's FtM gender reassignment surgery.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/phi-alpha-tau-transgender-surgery_n_2765653.html

I guess I just personally feel that 'categorizing' people, even with insults, is wrong. Because it makes it oh-so-very easy to just discount them, or even start to think of them as not-people. I'd argue trivializing people (whether as "Oh just a guy who doesn't understand" or "slut") is wrong, and can lead down a *very* dangerous path.

As Pratchett put it in Carpe Jugulum:

Quote:
And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.”
“It’s a lot more complicated than that—”
“No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.”
“Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes—”
“But they starts with thinking about people as things…”


(Granted, I will admit that Pratchett and the Discworld *have* shaped a lot of my thoughts on morality and such. I suppose I'm a Pratchettist.)
_________________
"No, but evil is still being --Is having reason-- Being reasonable! Mousie understands? Is always being reason. Is punishing world for not being... Like in head. Is always reason. World should be different, is reason."
-Ed, from Digger
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10588
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Where people would have used the term 'frat boy' a few years ago, they are now using the term 'dudebro'. It's a more inclusive term because a you don't ever need to have gone do college or have joined a fraternity for it to apply to you. It also avoids the misnomer elements (which you've pointed out) that come with 'frat boy' because it's specific to certain people with certain mindsets. I say 'people' because I'm pretty sure that just as there are male feminists there are also female dudebros.

On that note, I suppose it takes 10 words: Dudebro is the new 'frat boy', only more inclusive and accurate.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Felgraf



Joined: 10 Jul 2012
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Where people would have used the term 'frat boy' a few years ago, they are now using the term 'dudebro'. It's a more inclusive term because a you don't ever need to have gone do college or have joined a fraternity for it to apply to you. It also avoids the misnomer elements (which you've pointed out) that come with 'frat boy' because it's specific to certain people with certain mindsets. I say 'people' because I'm pretty sure that just as there are male feminists there are also female dudebros.

On that note, I suppose it takes 10 words: Dudebro is the new 'frat boy', only more inclusive and accurate.


Ah, apologies, I guess I did misunderstand a bit. Still, I admit I'm a bit leery of 'grouping' insults designed to, well, marginalize/trivialize a person, because eventually they can and do start getting handed out just to, well, marginalize and trivialize someone who disagrees (See: The way some right-wing media folks such as Limbaugh use the word 'Liberal' as a pejorative, and who they label as liberal-basically anyone who disagrees, so their opinion can be dismissed). Not that this is what you are *DOING*, mind, just... why I'm kind of nervous about things like that, I guess?
_________________
"No, but evil is still being --Is having reason-- Being reasonable! Mousie understands? Is always being reason. Is punishing world for not being... Like in head. Is always reason. World should be different, is reason."
-Ed, from Digger
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10588
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see your point, but that's moot. Dudebro was never meant to be non-pejoritive. It's like saying asshole, or shithead, or scumbag, only with a different, more specific definition.

The term liberal, on the other hand, is a term that was perverted in what it meant. Liberal, in simplest terms, means advocating progress and or change, the opposite of conservative.

Many, many people argue about the merits and detriments of both liberal values and conservative values. Only asshats and cretins are saying that being a dudebro is 'good' by any metric. Unless, of course, a person thinks being referred to as a specific type of misogynist (or any type of misogynist) as a 'good thing'.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10811
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How do you know it's accurate? What specific things do dudebros do and believe? Is there a survey you have people fill out before you apply the term? It sounds like you're describing a stereotype.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 174, 175, 176 ... 314, 315, 316  Next
Page 175 of 316

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group