Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 daedalus wrote:

 skyth wrote:
One thing to consider is that all the words are subjective and represent an opinion. Theoretically no actual news outlet should use them to describe anyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another thing to consider is it is worse to call a woman these things as compared to a man. A man that is described as calculating has a mild negative conotation as well as a bit of positive conotation. A woman described as calculating has a much stronger negative calculation.

It is a strange day for language when one cannot call a spade a spade for fear that it might seem more a spade than another.

I would be hesitant to use that expression in certain circles, it could land you in trouble. No surprise here that the 'list' of non-gender associated words is being described as not only gender associated but also sexist.

I wonder if these rules only apply to male journalists? Or would a female journalist also be "censored" in such as way? If the former, that would be in itself sexist.

I have no reason to believe it wouldn't apply to both.

 motyak wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 plastictrees wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Question here. Do these protections apply to other female electoral candidates, or just Hillary Clinton?

I guess that depends how capable of enforcing arbitrary requests a group of random people with twitter accounts are.

I don't care about enforcement, enforcement is not relevant.

The question stands: are the list of 'sexist' words forbidden for reference to just Hillary Clinton or all female electoral candidates?

I think who made the list, and who intends to enforce it, is very relevant when trying to get all outraged about this

You completely fail to understand the point. Enforcement is a secondary issue, it happens or it doesn't happen, and most likely not due to free speech laws.
The main relevance is whether the groups ghat made and/or support that list give special protection against "sexism" for Hillary Clinton, or all female candidates.
That is relevant.

If the protection is just for Hillary Clinton then it should be ridiculed on the grounds that it isn't sexist if it targets one person only if other women are not protected.

If the protection is for all female candidates then we will have to see if all female officials from Sarah Palin onwards figure is also allowed protection against critique, and if not why not.

 Torga_DW wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 skyth wrote:
One thing to consider is that all the words are subjective and represent an opinion. Theoretically no actual news outlet should use them to describe anyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another thing to consider is it is worse to call a woman these things as compared to a man. A man that is described as calculating has a mild negative conotation as well as a bit of positive conotation. A woman described as calculating has a much stronger negative calculation.

It is a strange day for language when one cannot call a spade a spade for fear that it might seem more a spade than another.

I would be hesitant to use that expression in certain circles, it could land you in trouble. No surprise here that the 'list' of non-gender associated words is being described as not only gender associated but also sexist.

The words themselves are indeed non-gender associated. But it's not really the words that could be considered sexist, but the roles and expectations attached to them and the traditional expectations that some people have of each gender. There have been quite a few studies of male bosses vs female bosses and how their leadership styles are viewed differently even if they are exactly the same. A male boss that is "ambitious" or "calculating" is often considered a good thing and that is what people might expect from a man, to be ruthless and get the deal done because that fits the traditional role of a man as a fighter. A woman who is "ambitious" or "calculating" suddenly becomes "bossy" or even a "bitch" because women are supposed to be caring nurturers and paternal. A man who works late hours and missed parent teacher night because he "does whatever it takes to get the job done" is a good provider, a woman who does the same is a horrible mother.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't use the words, it just means that we should stop treating women differently and stop pretending that a woman working as hard as a man is a bad thing. It's not the word that is bad, it's the hidden stereotypes behind them. But instead of not using the words we need to stop the stereotype.

So they're considered to be gateway badwords, like weed is considered a gateway drug to the harder stuff? I understand the concept, i just think it's ludicrous. Especially since the list of gateway words applies so well.

Calculating. HRC knew her husband bill was a philanderer, and she spent a great deal of effort keeping it hushed up so it wouldn't affect his chances at running for president. Calculating.

Political correctness gone too far. If the word applies, the word applies. The only ones engaged in sexist behaviour are the ones saying a person's gender should prevent otherwise relevant descriptions from being used about them.

Orwell must be turning in his grave.

They are not even gateway bad words, and it's really not that hard of a concept. It really doesn't have much of anything to do with the word itself.

It's not that ambitious is a bad word, it's just that historically our culture has viewed a woman being ambitous as a bad thing.

The problem is not with the words, it's with the old cultured that create the impressions that come to mind when the words are used.

As long as a successful businesswoman who places priority on her career instead of being a stay-at-home mom is considered a bad thing, it won't matter if she is called ambitious or a go-getter or anything else. Banning these words doesn't do anything to change that there are some people who will think like that.

Historically anyone being ambitious or anything on that list has been considered bad. I don't see a male politician who is disingenuous as being any better than a female disingenuous politician. This is just a case of people playing the gender card to try and get HRC an advantage, which i find.... calculating.

 Torga_DW wrote:
This is just a case of people playing the gender card to try and get HRC an advantage, which i find.... calculating.

Reported for sexism! "Calculating"? Really? How is this not covered by the word filter?! LEGO?!

 skyth wrote:
The thing is, they're not calling a spade a spade really. That's kind of my point.

For instance, as a man, if I mention I don't like kids...Well...I might hurt a chance at getting elected to a public office, but not all that bad.

If a woman mention that they don't like kids then they lose any chance of getting elected pretty much.

Yes, there is a double standard, and no it is not fair. But it is real in people's perception.

If a candidate said they were an atheist they would sink their chances with a large part of the electorate. The public have a certain view of politicians that candidates have to meet and non-traditional anything is treated with suspicion. Race came up again and again when Obama was being elected, there were lots of people openly saying they didn't want a black man running the country. A woman will have to go through the same process, a atheist will, and a homosexual. The public see their president as a white Christian family man because that's what they're used to. It's not much different in the UK despite the much lower interest in religion and marriage, people like Ed Milliband married long term partners quickly once it was clear they were going for office and I'm sure conforming to acceptable stereotypes was part of it.

Sorry, only skimming the thread, but has there been a source other than one set of tweets from the same person?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

If a candidate said they were an atheist they would sink their chances with a large part of the electorate. The public have a certain view of politicians that candidates have to meet and non-traditional anything is treated with suspicion. Race came up again and again when Obama was being elected, there were lots of people openly saying they didn't want a black man running the country. A woman will have to go through the same process, a atheist will, and a homosexual. The public see their president as a white Christian family man because that's what they're used to. It's not much different in the UK despite the much lower interest in religion and marriage, people like Ed Milliband married long term partners quickly once it was clear they were going for office and I'm sure conforming to acceptable stereotypes was part of it.

Let us not forget the huge kerfluffle because ER MER GERD that JFK is ... CATHOLIC!