--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > As I wrote about earlier, pretending that the > > > criticism or insult aimed at you *personally* > > > is really about a group is an old cultist's > > > trick, used to pretend it really *isn't* > > > about you personally. But it is. > > > > Following up on this, just because it's a > > fun topic, I think the issue is that some > > people react to being called a name by > > pretending that the name was "really" meant > > to refer not to them personally but to a > > group that they feel that they are "symbols" > > for. > > No, Barry, nobody here reacts that way. You > made that up. > > Here's the real issue: It simply doesn't occur > to men who don't have an underlying streak of > misogyny to insult/attack/criticize a woman > using terms that denigrate her on the basis of > her gender. > > Doing so is therefore a sure sign of a bad > attitude toward women. *Especially* in a > person who styles himself a writer, I might add, > because he presumably has a larger and more > varied vocabulary on which to draw to formulate > his criticisms/insults/attacks. > > It's a dead giveaway. And the pretense here is > all yours. >
Actually, I've found that using gender-neutral terms when insulting a woman gets a MUCH bigger response. Example called a woman a "jerk" once instead of a "bitch." She was quite upset. Lawson
