Topic

That's so ghetto! Bitches and gypsies discuss language, culture, and changing expectations.

To avoid derailing the Guidelines thread wrestling with a specific part of the Guidelines.  I thought we could move this discussion to its own thread.

When someone uses a word that you feel is a slur during a conversation that you are part of, how should you handle it and what do you expect of staff when you report it to them? 

If the slur is addressed to you by someone who intends it to be derogatory, then you've got a pretty clear case for the Report Abuse button. 

But what about the cases when someone isn't speaking to you or even directly about you specificly but uses an offensive term?  And continues to use it after you ask them to stop?

When someone describes something as "that's so ghetto".  When someone says "that bitch had it coming".  When someone says "I'm going to be a gypsy on Halloween".  When someone says "that's so geh".  What can we as a community do to help make folks comfortable?

Who is responsible for which parts of the strategy to handle a situation like this? 

Long ago and far away, one of my elderly relatives continued to refer to African-Americans as "colored" long after general society had begun to use the term "black". She was using what had been respectful terminology, but the world changed around her, and she innocently thought she was being polite, even as people around her cringed. 

What do you do in that situation?  What if the polite term you (and most of the rest of society) are currently using is pointed out to you as a slur by a member of the target group?  Do you become someone who leads the education and change?  Do you bite your tongue?  Or do you defend the current, non-hateful use of the word?

Posted 14 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • @Poppy: Yes, I was replying to you, Mr. Dawgg, and whoever else was taking the "words don't mean anything" stance. If words and language weren't powerful, then the people who rule the world would be the biggest strongest club-waving thugs in the world, not people who are skilled at smooth-talking and persuasion. Telling people to just not react to any words at all is going against the entire nature of human society.
    Posted 14 months ago by Effigy Subscriber! | Permalink
  • This is the internet. You do not know who you are talking with. You could speaking with the most amazing person in the world. You could be speaking with a psychotic killer that knows where you live. You don't know. It is good practice to use language you would use to speak with someone you respect. If you unable to do that, then speak like you could potentially want something from them.

    Of course, I am a cynic. Too many people were never taught respect as children, and the internet is no classroom for empathy.
    Posted 14 months ago by MrVolare Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Miriamele - The whole stereotyping thing you just laid out in your own words is a good 50% of what I'm even talking about, and what I've already brought up in previous posts- why would an entire culture want to be reduced to the equivalent of fairies, kobolds, elves and whatever else? Besides, are you Romani? Because I can understand why you wouldn't find either the stereotype or the word offensive (as I've said) if you aren't. Are there any stereotypes you get to deal with constantly? Because, if not, yeah, I could see thinking that "good" stereotypes are no big deal. Are most of your friends of the same culture/ethnicity/whatever that you are? Because then I could see why being told that something is objectionable would be met with "but I don't want it to be true because it spoils the image I've built up in my mind from fictional versions of real-world people". Like Effigy said, there's nothing quite as demeaning as being asked to perform my dark gypsy magics- unless it's a request to refrain from picking somebody's pockets, haha. 

    As much as I'd like to point out item by item all that is incredibly insensitive in that giant wall of text up there, I've sort of run out of patience for having to repeat everything I've already said over and over- I've explained why the stereotype is harmful (more than once), I've explained that, yes, the Roma and "gypsies" are the same thing (by virtue of lumping many disparate and distinct groups into one huge and inaccurate generalization, so there "not being anymore gypsies" in your mind is essentially a solipsism), I've explained why reducing an entire culture to a sideshow act is a pretty big middle-finger to centuries of discrimination, marginalization, and often, genocide. I don't know what more I can say that I haven't already stated in what I'd like to think is a fairly accessible manner. You may have to read in their entirety my previous posts- I think you'll find that most, if not all, of your questions have been answered already.
    Posted 14 months ago by Djabriil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Djabriil hiya!

    My thought process based on your various posts:
    - you think 'gypsy' is a slur
    - you don't get in a rage about it but you wish people knew about it
    - you don't like Romani being called 'gypsy'
    - you think Roma and gypsies ARE the same thing
    - you think 'gypsy' cannot be divorced from the meaning of Romani?  (not sure about this?)
    - you think Romani are NOT the stereotype 'gypsy' represents
    - you don't like the stereotype of 'gypsy'

    Some of those seem to be conflicting, hence my confusion.  I did a search for your posts and read them all just now, but maybe I misread/misunderstood something.  And I'm kinda tired of guessing so I thought I would just ask.  If you will, please bear in mind that I have never used the word at ALL in the society around me (my society is not American), so I have absolutely no problems not using it and avoiding it represents no challenge to me at all.  But in CASE I should ever be confronted with it, I am having a real hard time figuring out what my attitude towards it should be, because I am really not at all sure what your attitude towards the word is.

    Here's all my theories on what you would like my attitude towards the word to be:
    1. not use the word ever and treat it as a non-word, ie as if it does not exist in my vocabulary (my current situation).  (EDIT: not sure if this would also mean 'have no awareness of Romani culture' which was also my situation)
    2. only use it in a serious sense when I am talking respectfully about Romani
    3. only use it when obviously NOT talking about Romani, eg, I dunno, some kind of obscure painting technique that has that nickname or something, lol

    (EDIT: I also can't tell whether you object more to the stereotype or to the word.  If someone paraded the stereotype but did not use the word, would that be offensive?  Or if someone used the word without using the stereotype would that be offensive.  Which would be more offensive?)

    I am super confused at the moment and will probably just go with the status quo without any more clarity, since that is easiest!  But yeah if you feel up to another reply to this thread, clarity on the correct non-Romani attitude towards the word would be much appreciated.

    x
    Lara
    Posted 14 months ago by Lara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +100 Djabril

    I'm generally done with Privilege 101 and threads like these, but that was a great post.
    Posted 14 months ago by Tally Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Effigy,
    OK, I just wanted to clarify that your statement was, in fact, towards me.

    In that case all I can say is that you completely misconstrued everything that I said.
    You are missing my point entirely.  
    I'm sorry that after all of the explaining that I have done, the meaning of my posts has been completely lost.

    I hate trying to communicate in writing, because everything gets taken the wrong way.

    It's the plague of the interwebz I suppose. LOL
    Posted 14 months ago by Poppy of Detwoit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Effigy, I wasn't saying that it's ok to use the word. People are going to use it. Individuals have the power to rise above it.

    Also, Darious, both of your posts were good. And yes, I meant normalize in a way to come to an agreement. Not normalize as in become normal. I got it from the life cycle of a group. A group first forms, storms, norms, and then performs! Isn't that great.

    Miramelle, your post made me laugh. That's gay! Hahahaha. I love it. I'm going to start calling things gay as a positive sense now.
    Posted 14 months ago by Mr. Dawgg Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Lara- Gypsy is an incredibly loaded word for the Roma. Not only is it a pretty broad generalization, it carries very negative connotations for the Romani community, in the form of thieving, untrustworthiness, beggary, and general nastiness. I hear this word on a fairly regular basis (I'm active in the local community, and am not shy about my ethnicity), and it's never meant in a nice way. It's commonly used to denigrate us as a culture- the word has its origins in 16th century English, when the English assumed due to skin color that the Roma were Egyptians. Because of social and racial inequality, the word "gypcian" came to be associated with pick-pockets, thieves, and "heathens", and that particular stereotype bloomed from there. It was shorted to "gypsy", not losing any of its negativity, and has continued ever since. The "magical soothsaying wanderer" business didn't take hold till the 19th century, when it began to be romanticized by privileged white people- from there, we became lumped in with other groups like the Travelers and Irish "Tinkers", groups the Roma (already a widely varying ethnic group) have no relation to. With the advent of spiritualism and later, "New Age", the word "gypsy" was romanticized even further- we were now keepers of some mystical prophetic gift or something (in a very similar way to how many Native Americans have been typecast), and were often accused of casting spells on people or cursing their livestock, that sort of thing. 
    "Roma" is an acceptable term to all of us, considering it's our name for ourselves to begin with- and while I don't fly into a rage about it when I'm called a "gypsy" by people who have no real exposure to Roma culture, I do get asked for palm-readings and the like, usually jokingly, and more often than you might think, as though I'm some sort of carnival attraction and would find it absolutely hilarious. In Europe, it carries significant negative connotations, while in America, the situation leans toward the "free-spirited child of the road" stereotype (incidentally, I live in a house like most people, and have for many years). The second stereotype is harmful in that it is a reduction- like I've mentioned before, you wouldn't refer to all Latin Americans as "Mexicans", let alone "s**cs", so why would you do that very thing to another ethnic group, particularly one that has heard that word used for so long as a slur? I have heard people tell me, "But why do so many Romani organizations use it in their titles?" The long and short of it is, people latch onto that wandering stereotype, and many in the US don't actually know what Romani means- if you call yourself that, you're more likely to be asked where in Romania you hail from. Consequently, many Romani organizations have had to use a word that their own constituency doesn't necessarily have good thoughts about so the public knows what the organization represents. 
    My own relatives escaped the Holocaust from people who referred to them as "Zigeuner", a word that comes from the Greek root for "untouchable", implying that they were unclean. Nicolas Sarkozy, after the forced expulsion of nearly 300 camps in France, had the official record of the Roma in France changed to either Gypsy or Tzigane (which means the same thing as Zigeuner). When they came to the US, there were still laws on the books requiring them to get rather costly permits to camp in public camping areas anybody else could use, so there wasn't a "gypsy problem", or were simply run out of town for being "filthy gypsies". This was the 50s, so not exactly ancient history. 
    The way I see the issue of that wandering stereotype being co-opted as truth (and before I get an earful, I'm not alone here) is that, if one must appropriate the identity, or the stereotype more likely, of a culture that has been pushed into the mud countless times, surely the problem lies inside them somewhere; more so when a person been apprised of the meaning of a word that has so many terrible memories and connotations for the people it describes, and has been used not only to paint us as backstabbing thieves, but apparently also as the equivalent of "fairies, kobolds, knights, Arthurians, Indians (!)" and other mythical creatures from ancient legend. Because we're not actually people, we're Halloween costumes.
    So yes- "gypsy" is a word, seldom a good word, applied to the Roma. I feel that it's worth educating people about, as we are actual people with actual families, jobs, lives, etc, rather than mystical caricatures or scheming pick-pocket beggars. The only time it makes me truly upset is when a person who knows better uses it "because I can say whatever I want", or it is used in a negative way, which is more often than people seem to think. As the stereotype usually goes hand-in-hand with the word, it is somewhat difficult to understand how people think it's some sort of separate thing from the people it's based on... it'd be like telling African Americans that blackface has nothing to do with them, it's just for fun and games and they should laugh it off and be proud and flattered somehow that people with more privilege than they have have seen fit to bless them thusly. And no, I don't believe that the Roma are the stereotype that they've been saddled with- I know more of us than just myself, and we are easily as disparate and distinct as white America is, which really should go without saying, I'd think (but what do I know).
    This is pretty much where I'm leaving this- I've put a lot down in this forum, and I'm sure I've made various people in love with a false image upset, but it's important to me that I speak out because I live in a country where I can do so, and most of us do not. I don't have anything more to add, so if you have a genuine, respectful question, look me up in-game sometime and ask me. 
    Posted 14 months ago by Djabriil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Djabril:  I grew up thinking that the word gypsy just meant something exotic and romantic, somewhere along the line I learned that it was often used loosely as a slur against any migrant type european suspected of being a thief.   It is not surprising that Roma people would object to it in light of that.   Anyway, I just wanted to say that I have seen objections to the use of the word before.   Since you raised the topic I went to look around to read more about it.  Found this in current news: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/romanian-leader-criticized-for-his-remarks-about-gypsies-and-the-disabled/2011/10/18/gIQABTbNuL_story.html
    Posted 14 months ago by Treesa Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Miriamele: The problem with your circles-of-influence metaphor is that it proceeds outward from the person affected, and allows the offender to be in a neutral space, their act in a vacuum. Which is partially true, but we're all in somebody's second circle.

    So the ravings of a talk-radio show host may not impact me directly, but they can influence others with whom I do business, encounter on the subway, or am otherwise acquainted with.

    ====

    At least in America, pejorative terms are sometimes used to classify and dismiss issues, above and beyond discrimination. "Welfare moms," for example - yes, they're on welfare, and they're mothers, so the term is technically correct ... but it's used to imply that they've done something wrong, made bad choices, and are exploiting the system for their benefit. But, the term gives us the excuse to turn away, because of the implied fraud/malfeasance, and not look at the harsher issues of how people end up in these financial straits, and how to best help them.

    ====

    Trivia: the word 'tinker' was also used in the U.K. & Scottish Isles as a pejorative akin to 'gypsy' - an itinerant beggar, performer, or the like, often seen as a vagabond or a thief. Consider also America's own entry into this category: carpetbagger - with a similar meaning, an itinerant traveller, often seen as dishonest.

    (And while the noun doubtless gave rise to the verb 'tinker,' no, I'm not going all PC and demanding that TS change the skill name.)
    Posted 14 months ago by TK-855 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Djabriil: That was very educational. Thank you.
    Posted 14 months ago by crowdedsky Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I love the online etymology dictionary, soooooo much. 

    "tinker "mender of kettles, pots, pans, etc.," mid-13c. (as a surname), of uncertain origin. Some connect the word with the sound made by light hammering on metal. 

    The verb meaning "to keep busy in a useless way" is first found 1650s.

    Tinker's damn "something slight and worthless" is from 1824, probably simply preserving tinkers' reputation for free and casual use of profanity; more elaborate derivations exist, but seem to be just-so stories without evidence.
    "
    Posted 14 months ago by shhexy corin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Shexycorin: I went to the Oxford English Dictionary. They cite a source using 'swearing like a drunken Tinker' in 1635. (And, if you like etymology, check out Robert Claiborne's books on slang. Fun reading.)

    b. In Scotland and north of Ireland, the ordinary name for a gipsy: see tinkler n.1 Also, applied to itinerant beggars, traders, and performers generally; †a vagabond, tramp, or reputed thief (obs.).
    The chief ostensible business of travelling gipsies in Scotland used to be the sale or mending of pots, pans, kettles, and metal-ware generally; hence tinkers, or rather tinklers, was their ordinary designation.

    =====

    Misli gammi grad'il is a curse in Shelta Thari, purportedly the language of the Tinkers. It translates to, 'Bad luck, and be off with you.' ("The Secret Languages of Ireland," by Robert MacAllister.)
    Posted 14 months ago by TK-855 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • So to label someone with any descriptive word is to stereotype them. To name the group they belong to is not. Example:
    Saying, "I have a female friend who lives in Texas and raises cattle as an occupation" is okay.
    Saying, "My Texan cowgirl friend" is not.

     
    Posted 14 months ago by Holly Waterfall Subscriber! | Permalink
  • TK-855   - oh  I wasn't saying it's not a pejorative term. Just that it originally meant just fixing stuff. 

    I think nowadays it mainly means pottering about, possibly in a shed with some tools, doesn't it? 

    Is it still used by bigots?  I'm not sure what's fashionable with the racists these days.
    ;)
    Posted 14 months ago by shhexy corin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • (checking out Claiborne on amazon now :))
    Posted 14 months ago by shhexy corin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I have to be honest. I don't see anything wrong with either phrase.
    Posted 14 months ago by megan76 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Holly: IMHO, the distinction is when the term diminishes or qualifies the person as belonging to a specific, small demographic ("all gays are effeminate interior decorators" or "all Tinkers are thieves"), or perpetuates a preconception, that it becomes questionable.

    Thus, to call a female friend in Texas a 'cowgirl' is a stereotype if you mean her to be a horse-riding, lasso-tossing, hootin' and hollerin' Annie Oakley sort. But, if she's a ranch owner, she's probably also a savvy businesswoman, possessed of drive and determination, not just someone who pushes horses and cows around.

    (Etymology fans note: "Annie Oakley" was also used as slang for complimentary tickets to a show, named for their similarity to playing cards that Oakley shot holes through during her act.)
    Posted 14 months ago by TK-855 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Shexycorin: The OED lists the modern use of 'puttering around' first, but the pejorative is also included. Same word, different shades of meaning, because the Tinkers (pejorative) were also often tinkerers (itinerant repairmen).

    And, yes, the term is still pejorative, and still used in the UK/Scottish Isles. In 2002, there were attempts to bar Tinkers (now also called Travellers) from campsites in Ireland, and this trend has apparently continued.

    "We are who we stand up for, I think. What we protect."
    -- Sophie Neveau, "The DaVinci Code."
    Posted 14 months ago by TK-855 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • So let's all agree that we should all stop talking to each other or around each other or about each other for fear that we may say something that offends someone else or that we may hear something that offends us.
    Posted 14 months ago by Poppy of Detwoit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • This isn't going to be a very long/eloquent/rich post, but just want to say: I go to school, where "retarded" and "gay" make up most of the vocabulary of my classmates. Drives me crazy. And this, "So let's all agree that we should all stop talking to each other or around each other or about each other for fear that we may say something that offends someone else or that we may hear something that offends us," pretty much sums it up, IMHO. :)
    Posted 14 months ago by Cupcake Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Poppy, you do yourself no credit by resorting to that argument. What has been argued repeatedly, is not 'E'ed Plebnista is a holy word, you shall not say it!' but that we are mindful of a word's context and origins, and also each other's feelings.

    It's not that there are people who DO use such language, but that when you are in a shared world like Glitch, on an open chat circuit (global and local), that you are audible/visible to more than your intended audience.

    As an example, some years ago, I was at Disneyland with friends. Another young man, apparently trying to catch up to his friends, charged down the line and actually pushed the young son of one of my friends, who objected. The kid said something in another language (I believe it was Basque) and plowed onward.

    At the end of the line, a patient ride attendant had set the entire group aside, telling the young man's friends that if they were to wait, they would now wait until the rest of the line (perhaps one additional cycle of the ride) was clear. The young man chose to rant again in his language ... at which point, a woman in line said, "Young man, you should be careful what you say, because you never know who will understand you," - and then added something in the same language.

    The young man's friends immediately paled and insisted their highly-vocal friend shut his mouth before they got thrown out of the park.

    The lesson is not that he shouldn't speak Basque, but that he was in error thinking no one else would hear or understand what he said. It wasn't even relevant that the ride attendent or anyone else understand, because the other woman did.
    Posted 14 months ago by TK-855 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • My intention was not to gain credit with anyone.

    My intention was to be sarcastic about something that I feel is way out of hand, which is the extreme PC nature of modern society and the lack of personal responsibility when it comes to ones own feelings.  I think it's gone too far, and I was illustrating that by being snarky.

    My entire point was simply; pick your battles when it comes to these situations and realize that nobody can "make" you feel a certain way.  But my words were twisted to the point of someone accusing me of advocating the use of the "N" word.  Which is ridiculous.  I never said such a thing.  

    So I did what I do best and I whipped out the sarcasm.  I wasn't making an argument, I was just being a smart-ass.

    Sorry if I offended anyone....  :-p

    “Man must cease attributing his problems to his environment, and learn again to exercise his will - his personal responsibility."  -- Albert Einstein
    Posted 14 months ago by Poppy of Detwoit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Ok, I wasn't going to say anything, but I think the original discussion is well and truly derailed (so my contributing isn't going to take away from that discussion), and I think there are still some people here who are really trying hard to understand why people are so upset about this, so I am hoping to put things a different way and maybe give a different perspective (and maybe calm the churning in my gut caused by frustration and memory).

    (The TL;DR version for those people averse to walls of text)
    1) Words do hurt, despite children's rhymes, and despite my resolution to not let things bother me (made more than once).
    2) Completely aside from that, calling me "over-sensitive" or "too PC" doesn't actually change #1, AND it shows that you don't really understand WHY it's such a big deal.
    3) I do pick my battles. Context matters, and it doesn't, but maybe not in the ways you'd expect. It's why I'm finally choosing to respond.
    (You may now skip to the "conclusion" section. :-P)

    ***
    I will fully admit my share of privilege. I come from a family that functioned as a cohesive unit. I was never neglected or physically or sexually abused. I am male in a society with patriarchal roots. I never went hungry as a child and always had clothing, shelter, and financial support.

    BUT, I am an ethnic minority in my country and I grew up in a small town where that balance was even more skewed than the average. My looks easily demonstrate this and it has made me the object of multiple incidents of unpleasant words and actions. I would like to share three types of those, two of which are "just words" which were NOT "intended to be offensive" so you can see why words can still be problem, regardless of context or intent.

    1) As a child, I was small, awkward, and stood out. I was bullied, physically and verbally by those who wanted to single me out further. They made fun of my name. They made fun of me for the way I looked. They mocked the sounds of what they assumed was "my language." They physically assaulted me. They threw rocks at me.

    Not all of the peers I came into contact with did this, not all were involved in everything, and while the incidents lessened as I grew up, I was still subject to some unpleasant incidents even as a teenager, when my self-esteem and sense of self-worth were at their lowest. Having my mother tell me for years to "just ignore them" didn't help, and when I was able to, they didn't "just go away." Being better at mockery often did, but it would also exacerbate the bad feeling. Confronting the violence with violence made it stop until someone else came along.

    2) As a teenager, I was told more than once that I spoke the language very well. They spoke slower and louder to make sure I understood. Obviously, this was intended as a compliment, but it upset me because it said that because I looked different, I obviously had less automatic right to be there than the speaker. The first time, I just stood there, stunned for a minute, then kept going with the conversation. The second (and subsequent) times, I responded sarcastically (because I wasn't going to let it bother me) -- I spoke slower and louder and said "THANK YOU... SO DO YOU," and had my moment of smug satisfaction when they stood there, stunned for a minute, then kept going with the conversation. I'll tell you about my epiphany later.

    3) As a child, a teenager, and an adult, well-meaning people have asked "Where did you come from?" I would answer with the name of a town nearby. "No, I mean originally." When I answered with the name of another city nearby, they would then ask, "Well, where did your parents come from?" because, obviously, looking like I do, with a name like I have, I could not "come from" the country where I live...

    Here's the thing: while the person questioning me not only did not intend to be offensive, he or she was actually trying to learn, but still, the question hurt. It again told me that I didn't belong. It disregarded the members of my family that had worked hard, paid taxes, and shed blood for this country. It minimized the efforts of my grandparents that had been forced to start from scratch again after they were treated poorly by the government because they looked different and had funny sounding names. It completely ignored the fact that my family could have been in this country longer than that of the person asking the question, since my great-grandparents all came here very young, 100 years or more ago.

    Conclusion:
    All of these people hurt me, whether or not they intended to do so. I don't care if that makes me weak; it hurt. Let's move on. So who do I confront? Who do I ignore? Some of you would say to stand up to the people who were knowingly assaulting me, because that's not right, and ignore the well-meaning (or at least neutral) comments because they weren't intended to offend.

    The problem here is that they ALL come from the same place. Every single one of these incidents stems from ignorance. The same ignorance that lets these people assume that I can't possibly belong because I look different is the one that caused my grandparents so much pain and suffering.

    I will pick my battles. I defend myself physically if necessary -- and I will step in when someone else is in danger -- but I will not confront. (I will give my mother the benefit of the doubt and assume that's what she meant by "ignoring" people and not that she is naive enough to believe that "ignoring" anything makes it better.) I will NOT try to argue with the people who are intentionally directing hurtful words at me. Nothing I say will change their willful ignorance.

    I will try to educate. When I got tired of being sarcastic, I told the people who complimented my ability to speak our shared native language that I was born here, as were my parents and my grandparents -- no condescension, no anger. They would say, "Oh," or "Huh," and walk away, often with a thoughtful look on their faces. If I tell the people who ask "where I come from" that I was born in [local city] and my family immigrated from [other country] at the turn of the last century (instead of pretending I don't know the actual intent of their question), they will act approximately the same.

    If one of my friends uses a word or a term that I find objectionable, I will mention it later, in private, so I don't force a confrontation in front of others. I will hope for them to understand and to stop using that language around me. I can't expect them to expunge it totally, unless I actually get through and they think a little and choose to change on their own.

    I'm adding a new one. If I see a discussion on the internet that seems to have interested participants that aren't just spouting rhetoric, lashing out, and constructing straw men (yes, on both sides), I will speak up, and hope that I get at least one person to go, "Oh," or "Huh," and walk away with a slightly different perspective.

    Thanks.
    Posted 14 months ago by EnnuiStreet Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @ tk-855   ".....Thus, to call a female friend in Texas a 'cowgirl' is a stereotype if you mean her to be a horse-riding, lasso-tossing, hootin' and hollerin' Annie Oakley sort. But, if she's a ranch owner, she's probably also a savvy businesswoman, possessed of drive and determination, not just someone who pushes horses and cows around.... "

    It seems to me your comment was well intended but why would you presume a ranch owner is any of the things you mentioned? Owning a ranch does not require or imply any of these things. So being a cowgirl would be seen better if you owned the ranch you worked on? Again, this demonstrates how a persons age, experiences and perspective dictate what words or terms may be offensive to them.

    I hear cowgirl and I think of a woman who rides horses ( possibly herding, wrangling ect...). I hear  ranch owner and I think of a woman who owns a ranch. Neither are negative.  However your statement "...not just someone who pushes horses and cows around..." would undoubtedly be very offensive to the men and woman who are in that line of work, which is quite difficult by the way. Although I think it was unintentional, you did just insult a a whole trade of people. I don't know how much experience you have with horses or cattle but the job does require much more than simply pushing them around.  :)

    Even the most well intended comments can step on someone toes. That is where the tolerance and understanding comes in. In a world where we are all so different, it is inevitable.
    Posted 14 months ago by megan76 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I agree with Poppy of Detwoit, but I do understand EnnuiStreet as well.
    It all comes down to the context where you use words or ask questions. About looking different: people are curious, and you might have some nice stories about your roots. I have adventurous stories about my roots but nobody ever asks because I look "the same".

    I do try to take into account other peoples feeling, but I often speak before I think. Changing your vocabulary takes time, mistakes will be made again. And for some things I simply don't have other words for then the apparantly offensive word. But by not saying it doesn't mean it's not in my head. Stereotypes will always exist. And stereotypes are always superficial and don't do the group it is representing justice. Like the average family: it doesn't exist. No one IS the average person or a  stereotype. Pretending there is no stereotype to be PC feels like lying. I always try to be honest.

    In this discussion, we've been stereotyping the event of someone saying something hurtfull unintentionally, then learning it hurts, and still saying it. The viewpoints get more extreme and further away from eachother, the differences are emphasized. In the end, it looks like it's either black or white, while in reality there's lots of different shades of grey in between. It all comes down to context, intent, and the personalities and culture of the persons involved.

    @TK-855: just as there could be friends of yours in the offenders 2nd circle of influence, so are there people in whose 2nd circle the offender resides. And maybe those are willing to listen and act.

    @ Lara: I nod at your post (I had the same questions)

    @Djabrill: Thank you for trying to explain. And I apologize if I hurt you. I will not use the word anymore to describe anything other then the oriental dance style (as that is the name of that dancestyle, I don't think there is any other name for it.), and for Roma people I will never use the stereotype of that word. (Not that I ever did use it for Roma, but just confirming I will never do in the future as well). I never saw it as a stereotype of the Roma people anyway, it's too far apart from each other. My stereotype of a Roma? A supressed minority, countries don't want them because they are being blamed for everything (it's easy to point the finger at others, it's always the immigrants fault, never the native person).That's about it. It is far from complete as I don't know enough about them. .
    Deleting it's image is impossible though. That is why I mentioned fairies and knights. Knights did exist, are romantisized lots too. Just like pirates. Everyone knows pirates of these times have nothing to do with the pirates from the movies. Also I hope people know the pirates of the movies probably do not represent the pirates which they imitate. Fairies did not exist but the stereotype of a fairy does exist. Despite the chasm between reality and fantasy, history and present day, stereotypes will exist. The most important question imo is if people are able to see a stereotype for what it is, and if they are willing and able to interact with the represented people/object without too much prejudice and are willing and able adjust their image of the represented people/object when they see it isn't right.
    Posted 14 months ago by Miriamele Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Megan76: Holly qualified 'cowgirl' as a stereotype. I allowed that the term could include a ranch owner, and a savvy business person, not just the stereotypical definition you suggested.

    You then negate my expansion of the term and return to it a level where you are able to perceive it as an insult. I think you're missing the point of some of the discussion, which is to expand one's awareness beyond the simplistic definitions we often accept and use without really thinking.
    Posted 14 months ago by TK-855 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @megan76 & @Miriamele:
    Well said. We are ALL capable of and guilty of unintended stereotyping and bias, sometimes through ignorance or laziness, but also because of the way we are compelled to label things, group things, and relate them to our experiences, so that we can deal with them.

    I hope that no one is naive enough to believe that discussions like this will cause EVERYONE to change behavior and language to a hypothetical, homogenous ideal (which, frankly, would be boring if it were even possible), but I think the best intentioned on all sides engage in dialogue to better understand perspectives and to help those of us that are willing to examine ourselves and our actions to see how they can affect others in ways we didn't intend. Raising self-awareness in someone else may not fix the inequality, oppression, and injustice in the world, but eliminating some of the ignorance that makes it easier will help, eventually.
    Posted 14 months ago by EnnuiStreet Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @TK-855: I think you might be missing the point of the response, which was that you may have expanded the definition, but you're still making assumptions and maybe dealing in those "positive stereotpes" or other actions that minimize people associated with the term... If you're not sure what I mean, go back and look at Djabriil's posts to see why even "positive" stereotypes can be negative.
    Posted 14 months ago by EnnuiStreet Subscriber! | Permalink
  • nevermind....posted in the wrong thread.  How, I don't know.  :-)
    Carry on
    Posted 14 months ago by Poppy of Detwoit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @tk-855   "...You then negate my expansion of the term and return to it a level where you are able to perceive it as an insult. I think you're missing the point of some of the discussion, which is to expand one's awareness beyond the simplistic definitions we often accept and use without really thinking."

    I don't think I am missing the point. The reason your post is able to be perceived as an insult is because....it is insulting. Your "expansion of the term", as worded, is belittleing no matter how you look at it. Again, I know this was not intentional. You were were triing to make a valid point. I was using your post to make my point...that even the most well intended statements ( even positive ones) can inadvertently step on someones toes.

    I've read your other posts, I know what you were trying say. It is clear that you are trying to be part of the solution. I personaly feel that you did exactly what you are trying to make others aware not to do.

    We should all expand our awareness. Isn't this the type of thing that we have been talking about? People think they are doing/saying the right thing and then they object to the idea they may be wrong. .....even when someone expresses to them why.

    P.S. Part of my personal experience is that I spent 5 years on a horse farm in the country. Trust me, your comment could quite easily be offensive.
    Posted 14 months ago by megan76 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Djabriil - And those connotations are your own, the power you put into those words is your own, yes I'll dress up like a gypsy for halloween big deal, someone dresses up like me for halloween, big deal. Stop being so easily offended, it's the internet, if you've been here long enough to get into MMOs and you still don't have thick enough skin to deal with people using words you don't like, you've been doing something seriously wrong.

    Flagging everything isn't a solution either 'Flag It and Move On' leads to a lot of stuff to sift through that is just baseless and meaningless.
    "I'm going to dress up like an American for halloween!", I'm not going to star taking offensive, neither am I if you dress up like a typical-chemistry-major, or an african american, I simply don't care, and neither should you, instead of taking it so offensively you should just accept that they are stating a fact, they are going to do X, they're not saying "Hah gypsies are so ugly I'll dress up like one, it's comical!" or "Well I'm begging so I might as well dress like a gypsy!", no they're saying what they're going to do. If you are a gypsy and you are offended, you should be the one simply moving on, seriously if you can't handle such comments on the internet I hate to see what these sorts of people are like in real life, am I not able to call my own dog a bitch or reference her? Am I not able to say "Shit!" when I spill my coffee?

    Why must people insist constantly, on the internet of all places, that you have to talk 'as clean as possible' to not be offensive.

    Most 'stereotypical definitions', while you may take offense to it are really your problem, if someone's running around saying "Hey you're gay!" to everyone they meet, that's another story, because it addresses a specific person in a derogatory manner, (and really only that person should be upset, not everyone else, I mean, seriously?) but if you're just saying it like "Well that's gay" because you got +1 instead of +30 in Ajaya, what is wrong with that pray tell, what is so offensive about it? That I used word the gay? Is that really supposed to be a problem?
    Posted 14 months ago by Bluigi Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Djabriil - And those connotations are your own, the power you put into those words is your own, yes I'll dress up like a gypsy for halloween big deal, someone dresses up like me for halloween, big deal. Stop being so easily offended, it's the internet, if you've been here long enough to get into MMOs and you still don't have thick enough skin to deal with people using words you don't like, you've been doing something seriously wrong.

    Flagging everything isn't a solution either 'Flag It and Move On' leads to a lot of stuff to sift through that is just baseless and meaningless.
    "I'm going to dress up like an American for halloween!", I'm not going to star taking offensive, neither am I if you dress up like a typical-chemistry-major, or an african american, I simply don't care, and neither should you, instead of taking it so offensively you should just accept that they are stating a fact, they are going to do X, they're not saying "Hah gypsies are so ugly I'll dress up like one, it's comical!" or "Well I'm begging so I might as well dress like a gypsy!", no they're saying what they're going to do. If you are a gypsy and you are offended, you should be the one simply moving on, seriously if you can't handle such comments on the internet I hate to see what these sorts of people are like in real life, am I not able to call my own dog a bitch or reference her? Am I not able to say "Shit!" when I spill my coffee?

    Why must people insist constantly, on the internet of all places, that you have to talk 'as clean as possible' to not be offensive.

    Most 'stereotypical definitions', while you may take offense to it are really your problem, if someone's running around saying "Hey you're gay!" to everyone they meet, that's another story, because it addresses a specific person in a derogatory manner, (and really only that person should be upset, not everyone else, I mean, seriously?) but if you're just saying it like "Well that's gay" because you got +1 instead of +30 in Ajaya, what is wrong with that pray tell, what is so offensive about it? That I used word the gay? Is that really supposed to be a problem?
    Posted 14 months ago by Bluigi Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Megan75:

    And again, you're choosing to keep the framing where the word is viewed as a slight or insult. I pointed out that 'cowgirls' can include owners and businesswomen, not just 'people who herd horses and cows' - and this is a limitation you have chosen to impose upon yourself.

    Surely, you're more than just this? Please note that my reply to Holly was that the stereotype exists when the word qualifies a small demographic, and/or enforces preconceptions. I then gave an example where someone labelled as a 'cowgirl' can be much, much more.

    So I am a bit puzzled when you say, "Hey, cowgirls aren't always businesswomen!" and claim I have given offense, when that's your definition, not mine, and certainly not what I'm expressing - that 'cowgirl' can mean more than the stereotype, but not that I would henceforth call anyone who owns or works with horses a 'cowgirl.'

    At the very least, if you disagree with my description of 'cowgirl,' tell me what the preferred term is, don't leave me guessing and claiming offense at each incorrect guess. (Djabrill did this, qualifying 'gypsy' as the pejorative. and informing us of a better word.)
    Posted 14 months ago by TK-855 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Well, I don't know about you, but I do find the song "Save A Horse Ride A Cowboy" to be offensive.  
    LOL  
    oh I crack myself up.
    Posted 14 months ago by Poppy of Detwoit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @TK-855: Among other things, @Megan75 is saying that there is nothing wrong with being a person who "just herds horses and cows"... You yourself have pushed for people to re-examine their words and how they might be perceived by others. Please take a minute, step back, and understand that it wasn't an attack, just an observation on how someone who identified with cowhands and has personal history in that space might view your comments.

    Stereotypes are not just "qualify(ing) small demographics" but terms, concepts, and preconceptions that apply simple definitions to large groups of individuals. If you can understand that both of you are trying to make the same points -- we're all capable of unintentional bias and that being able to re-examine one's own preconceptions in an objective manner is a good thing, whether or not we choose to change after an honest appraisal -- then try to re-read her analysis and see why someone might still find what you said stereotyping or dismissive.
    Posted 14 months ago by EnnuiStreet Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Bluigi - Yes in my opinion it's a problem.

    Someday when I run around saying "Hey you're gay!" to people it won't be derogatory, it will be in celebration of their wonderful gayness. Just saying that someone is gay is not an insult. On the other hand, if something bad happens, like getting +1 instead of +30 in Ajaya, and to express how bad it is you say it's "gay" that's not a good thing. You would be defining a person's identity as a negative description. Gay does not equal bad.
    Posted 14 months ago by crowdedsky Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Bluigi - Have you read this thread at all?

    And those connotations are your own, the power you put into those words is your own and "Well that's gay" because you got +1 instead of +30 in Ajaya, what is wrong with that pray tell
    The point is that there is historical/cultural context why a phrase or term is used and the negative connotations related to it.

    1) "Gypsy" has negative connotations because of people looking upon the Roma as dirty thieves, which is where "gypped" comes from, not because Djabrill says she finds it offensive without reason.
    2) "Well that's gay" in your context means "well that shitty", thus linking gay and shitty together. This is offensive.

    To repeat the point: Words hurt. Words have incredible influence. To call people "oversensitive" and tell them to "grow thicker skin" is incredibly hurtful by essentially saying their objections to racially/culturally/etc negative terms don't matter.
    Posted 14 months ago by Asperity Subscriber! | Permalink
  • When I was in middle school and would say "that's gay" (because that's what we said when we were in middle school) I never associated it with actual gay PEOPLE.  To me, even back then, it was a separate phrase, not intended to apply to homosexual people.
    I didn't think that there was anything wrong with being gay then, and I still don't see anything wrong with it.  But I used that phrase when I was younger.

    I know this isn't the same, because this word isn't offensive (that I know of), but you can say something is 'cool' meaning it's nifty...or you can say something is 'cool' referring to it's temperature.  When I hear people say "that's gay", It doesn't make me think about gay people, it makes me think about middle schoolers.  (lol)  Sorry, I'm not trying to make light of this...

    Gay used to mean happy, as previously mentioned.
    Words take on all kinds of meanings in different vernaculars.  

    If you are gay and you decide to take the meaning of that phrase as a slur against you, then you can choose to do that.  But if someone is saying that a situation is gay, or an inanimate object is gay...then why would you choose to apply that to yourself or your community?  They aren't actually referring to you or any other person.  
    Do I think that adults should go around calling everything "gay"?  No, it's immature.  But I don't think that it should offend people as much as they have allowed it to offend them.  Or, I suppose, I wouldn't let it offend me any more than normal immature behavior offends me.  

    I am fat.  I'm a fat person.  I don't get mad when people used to say "that ride is really phat!"  or upset about the brand name "Baby Phat".  I know that it isn't the same thing as calling a person fat as an insult.  And, to be honest, if someone walked up to me and said "you're fat" right in my face, my instinct would be to say something clever like..."what was your first clue", or "good job, captain obvious."  I AM fat, so why would it be insulting to call me fat?
    But I digress...

    If gay were spelled gae or gey or something like that, in the phrase "that's so gay", would it make it better?  Would you still find it offensive?  
    Posted 14 months ago by Poppy of Detwoit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • In adults, I think it's mostly a symptom of the bigger problem, but in children "that's so gay" is a big part of what makes kids so afraid to come out as gay. In addition to a lot of kids acting grossed out at the idea of homosexuality in general, even the ones that say they don't have a problem with gay people are saying "that's so gay" to describe something they don't like. Middle school kids are insecure in general, and the prospect of actually becoming this thing that all their friends casually demonize is absolutely frightening.
    Posted 14 months ago by Effigy Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Ya, I can understand that point, Effigy.  That makes sense.

    As an adult, though...does the phrase still have that kind of impact?
    Posted 14 months ago by Poppy of Detwoit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Poppy - The fact is that "gay" is being associated with something bad. It's not used in a positive context such as "phat". When people talk about "phat", at no point do they mean "fat". There are plenty of people in the world (and this country) who do in fact mean "gay" = "shitty" = homosexual, adults and children alike. Gay is not a synonym for shitty. If you mean shitty, say shitty.
    Posted 14 months ago by Asperity Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I see it this way,
    gay = happy  also gay = homosexual also gay = stupid.
    three different and separate meanings, being used simultaneously in our language.

    Is this not a possibility?  I'm actually asking, I'm not saying that it is this way.  I'm asking, is it possible that when people say "that is gay", if they could be referring to one meaning without incorporating the other two meanings?  

    Why muddle two of the meanings together?

    I'm honestly not trying to be inflammatory, seriously. 

    Because now I'm also wondering, how did the 'happy' definition of gay become the 'homosexual' definition of gay?  And was the word 'gay', when it first transitioned to mean homosexual, considered a slur as well or was it always acceptable?  
    Were people upset that when they were trying to say that a party that they had attended was "a gay event" all of a sudden meant that it was a party attended by gay people?
    Posted 14 months ago by Poppy of Detwoit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Not all gypsys are Romani. There is an entire group that is Irish, too.  They can be called Irish Gypsies or Irish Travellers.  I know this, because I have some in my family.  So how about this, I dont care if you use the word gypped.  Just make sure you using it in a Irish context ;)

    Good grief guys, relax.  Quit getting so hung up on words.  Please try not to assume malice in others....  Sometimes it is best to just let it roll off you.  Different cultures through out the world will use worlds completely differently.  In a world like Ur, you have to learn to just relax, smile, and take a deep breathe. *hugs*

    And oh, BTW...let go of the 'cowgirl' thing.  I live in Cowtown USA, where the National Cowgirl Museum is located. http://www.cowgirl.net/  Cowgirls rock! (Goes to put on my boots and jeans.......And, Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy...awesome song!)
    Posted 14 months ago by Innie✿, Obviously Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Ennui: What I said was entirely in context to Holly's question. It is not about a word that I chose to use - simply offered an opinion that Holly need not be so politically correct, and, perhaps I could have been clearer - that there would be nothing objectionable about the term if her friend did not take offense. (If her friend DOES take offense at the term, then it's inappropriate to use to describe her, 'expanded' or not.)

    If I were to call Megan a cowgirl, and she objected, I would stop, and - as I have stated before - ask for an alternative word or description.

    I'm willing to back up, willing to use another term, but don't hop all over me for using 'cowgirl' within the frame of a hypothetical situation. Don't make it about me being wrong or using the wrong word; tell me a better word to use, help me understand - that, too, is part of the awareness I cited. 
    Posted 14 months ago by TK-855 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • From Wikipedia, the history of word "gay". It's been used as a slur since the 1600s.

    The two meanings are NOT muddled. Again, I repeat: many people do in fact mean that something is shitty because it's gay/homosexual. People young and old have killed themselves from the bullying that stemmed from being called gay (whether or not they were gay is not relevant).

    Also, reading material for why "That's so gay" is offensive:
    -from Miami University
    -from Huffington Post
    Posted 14 months ago by Asperity Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Poppy, you're missing a copuple of important points though, whilst gay = bad may not be linked in your head to gay = homosexual, doesnt mean it isnt linked in reality. 

    The reason gay = bad came to be is precisely because gay = homosexual = bad. And that carries weight in a lot of places.

    There is also, to consider, just because you think gay = bad is not linked in your head to gay = homosexual, doesnt mean it isnt. There are clearly going to be subconscious linguistic connections in your brain which you arent going to be aware of operating on you.
    Posted 14 months ago by SacredBob Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Another (serious) question...
    When I was a child, retarded people were called retarded.  There was no other word or name that they used to describe their various conditions.
    Since then, there have been at least 3 changes in what is an acceptable word to describe the people who would fall into this category of "retarded".  (trying to choose my words carefully...) 
    It is not acceptable to call these folks retarded anymore.  You can't do it.  It's been deemed as offensive by our society as a whole.

    So...if people want to re-purpose that word to mean that something is stupid, why isn't that alright?  The word retarded doesn't mean what it originally meant anymore (similar to the word gay).  We don't use it to refer to mentally challenged (sorry if that isn't the current word) people anymore, so why would anyone care if we want to use it in a different way?  That word is no longer attached to what it originally was.  Why can't we take it and change it and use it?

    Sorry...
    I can't help that this is the way that my brain works....

    EDIT:
    I was writing this while you two were writing your replies to me.  Let me read them, consider them, and I will (possibly) get back with you.  :-)
    Posted 14 months ago by Poppy of Detwoit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • SacredBob,
    To clarify, I didn't say that in reality those three meanings are separate or that they are separate in my head.  I was simply asking a question and thinking about things from a perspective that I haven't seen addressed as of yet.  My brain likes to work in a very convoluted way.

    Your answer is valid and your point is well made, and accepted by me.

    Asperity,
    Thanks for the links.  I read the Wikipedia information and I will read the articles you posted as well.

    I appreciate the responses and the conversations.  I love to think and talk a point to death from every angle that I can come up with.  Not many people are willing to engage in that.  they just get frustrated with me and very, very angry.  LOL

    Thanks.
    Posted 14 months ago by Poppy of Detwoit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Ok then I'm not 100% sure I understand your question.

    If it's "Why can't we take it and change it and use it?", the the answer is relatively simple, because of history. It's both impossible and also rude to ignore the work done by civil rights activists to gain equality in order to justify repurposing a word to mean something derogatory.
    Posted 14 months ago by SacredBob Subscriber! | Permalink