Why Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned is sexist

[dutch508]

The Vagina Brigade continues it's advance across DU...

cali (94,370 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025244119

Why Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned is sexist


First of all, bitchbitchbitchbitch.....

  ****ing put a sock in it, you old whore. Get in the kitchen and makes us sammiches!

BainsBane (27,223 posts)
13. I wish I could say I was amazed but I'm not, even a little bit.

ugh...

randys1 (2,336 posts)
51. I am not, I have found lots of rightwing thinking on this site

Comrade Grumpy (8,184 posts)
3. Can we go after Shakespeare next?

cali (94,370 posts)
6. what's your point?

Am I saying Congreve's work should be banned or shunned? Of course not. Am I going "after" Congreve's works? Of course not. That was explained in clear, simple language in the OP.

gad. please attempt to use some critical thinking in discussions such as this one.

BainsBane (27,223 posts)
8. It's called derail and distract

like a street magician with three cups, who diverts your eye so you don't see the ball.

awake (791 posts)
9. Here is the full quote

"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned,"
spoken by Zara in Act III, Scene VIII in William Congreve play The Mourning Bride (1697)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Congreve

cali (94,370 posts)
16. thanks so much for your post Scuba.

I did attribute it to folks on the jury being unaware of the sexism of the phrase. It seems obvious to me in the same way that "Muslims don't renounce terrorism" is obvious.

sabrina 1 (44,718 posts)
21. I don't agree with you, as a woman. And as a woman, I acknowledge the right of others to disagree with others' opinions.

That is what women fought for for centuries, to be able to express their views without being silenced and I'm damned if anyone is going to remove that right from me. I'm sure you would agree.

The phrase is not offensive to all women, perhaps even to most.

In fact I like the fact that women are viewed as having the same power as men wherever they may have it. As you stated, men are generally the ones who are credited with this kind of power. I like it that women also are recognized as forces to be reckoned with.

You are entitled to your opinion and other women are entitled to theirs. I am sorry if this upsets you.

cali (94,370 posts)
24. it's more than opinion. It;s a sentiment that wrongly characterizes women it's the same as saying "Muslims don't condemn terrorists".

Your opinion hardly upsets me. I simply think you don't get it- about so very many things.

Not that I think you will ever get it, but let me explain to you in stark terms why it's so sexist: It's about how women purportedly react to rejection from men. Now that that's established: It's saying that women cannot act rationally in the face of a rejection by a man.

this isn't rocket science, dear.

That isn't what it is saying at all.

seabeyond (96,089 posts)
166. oh. ya right. you think you are pulling the wool over the mens eyes. so as they insult you.

and giggle, laugh, ect.... in your mind you are saying you are all that and the joke is on them?

wowsers.

that is a tough one for me to wrap my mind around as they use this to, oh....

not pay us as much
not give us promotions
pass laws restricting our healthcare
not filing reports, prosecuting, convicting, sentencing rape

all the while, the joke is on them.

hm

who would have thunk, we had all that power all along, being denigrated and laughed at by men in a degrading manner.

seabeyond (96,089 posts)
37. every one of your posts starts, woman here, and no misogyny or sexism at all. really. every one.

i would think with sabrina and your long history on du, you would not have to put WOMAN WOMAN and i never see sexism.

i have never seen any posts declare their gender as often as your.

interesting.

sabrina 1 (44,718 posts)
92. So you are saying that because I don't agree that a literary quote is sexist

and DARED to express that disagreement, explaining that I, a woman, do not share that view AS A WOMAN, with a few other women, I should NOT have stated that I am a woman??

WHY?

It IS hard to understand otherwise I would understand it. I have NEVER admonished any woman for stating she IS a woman, it would be inconceivable to me.

What is easy to understand is that some people cannot tolerate any disagreement, that is certainly clear, but to take issue with someone simply stating who they are, that is completely incomprehensible.

Your explanation only makes it more strange to be honest. I guess I'm just one of those people who is not that complicated, who doesn't read something nefarious into everything someone else says. I say what I think, and see no reason to do anything else so I am completely puzzled by all the conspiracies and suppositions about people who simply have a DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.

There is something very odd about it frankly.

boston bean (20,955 posts)
144. Right, we got it. Women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman wouldn't agree with much of anything I had to say.

So?

BainsBane (27,223 posts)
154. The insulting was done by the person whose language you are defending

He called the OP a c... and insisted she should be anally and orally raped. That is the person whose language you are defending. That you try to present people who agree with the OP about his comments, in both the OP and PM, as insulting anyone is outrageous. It is in fact unconscionable.

You spend much of this thread talking about how you weren't offended by sexist language and therefore how those of us who voice objections to it are "weak." If you aren't so easily offended, what insults are you talking about? Why is it that sexist and misogynistic insults are supposed to be tolerated without comment, but there is some unmentioned insult perpetrated by feminists who challenge such language that you find so unacceptable? How exactly does that work? Why should you be so much more easily offended by objections to sexism than sexism itself?

cali (94,370 posts)
32. so then it's opinion that Muslims have a predilection for terrorism and generally don't condemn it?

and it's opinion that women cannot act rationally in the face of a rejection from a man.

some opinions are worthy only of SCORN. and that's what should be directed at BOTH those opinions.

Just my opinion of course. One I find empowering as a human being.

BainsBane (27,223 posts)
26. I've alerted on the phrase a couple of times and it's been hidden

so clearly some juries see it as sexist. Typically one sees the "hell hath no fury" part.

seabeyond (96,089 posts)
28. here is another that goes along what you say, woman scorned. all women are liars.

i was watching a fun psych tv series, love the show. two older detectives are with the younger detectives. one of the younger says, how did you know she was lying.

both older me say at the same time....

cause she is a woman

and laugh. and laugh.

cause she is a woman. she is a woman, so when she opens her mouth you know she is lying.

i am a person that takes seriously lying. i do not like it. i do not do it. my boys and husband cannot find a single time i have lied.

yet, a show, a little saying, society, gets to paint me as a liar because i am.... a woman.

i know. i am suppose to laugh.

not funny.

JEFF9K (1,119 posts)
185. You are correct.

It's ridiculous the way this site shackles free speech and free thought. Who really gains from it?

If something is offensive to someone, she should leave a comment to that effect. Not ask a jury to shut it down!

Who knows how many people have left this site in disgust!

Can you imagine George Carlin, Bill Maher, or Christopher Hitchens joining and staying?

seabeyond (96,089 posts)
190. challenge the democratic administration to your free speech of rw talking points. i dare you.

i double dog dare you.

come on

the outrage, that they dare to limit your speech. go at it.

while you are at it, tel them you want to use the n word and the f word.

go for it dude, that they dared to limit your speech.

give 'em hell

JEFF9K (1,119 posts)
209. What the eff are you talking about?

JEFF9K (1,119 posts)
214. Please explain how what you said even begins to make sense.

The "f" word is used at this site all the time.

The "n" word is clearly offensive to 99.999% of educated people, and no one could possibly take issue with censoring its use in a negative context.

The phrase that this thread pertains to is clearly NOT offensive to educated people. Attempts to argue that it is is in my opinion counter-productive to the interests of Democrats and is, in my opinion, mind-bogglingly stupid.

seabeyond (96,089 posts)
215. you are yelling about your free speech being shackled. oh the outrage. so, tell skinner not being

able to use rw speech is such a ****in outrage.

and no. the f word is not used all the time, you would be kicked off the board. the f word toward gays.

of course the n word is not used.

so basically you are saying, you are all for free speech having shackles on it with some speech. just the free speech yuo want is not allowed. SHACKLES i tell you.

seabeyond (96,089 posts)
62. more men murder women when scorned. few women do shit when scorned, besides leave. it is bullshit,

firstly

like you say, it is a guy think.

generally, the man is getting a pat on the back ****ing around, and look at that silly woman, i threw her away and she is pissed. ah well.

wink wink. snort. jab in the rib.

it is a bullshit saying, made up by a man, used by men, to get a giggle on at the expense of women.

ya. no sexism there.

Star Member BainsBane (27,223 posts)
142. "I despise the way posters here are lumped into groups to be demonized "

That from someone who has not only accused me of what others have said based on your assumption we are all of the same group but insisted I was to blame for actions that took place before I even joined the site

BainsBane (27,223 posts)
130. The idea that there is something "weak" about recognizing sexism is absurd

silence is not strength. Accepting inequality is not strength. To listen to some here, thousands of academics who work in gender studies and discourse or semiotic analysis are weak because they explore the gendered use of language. It's is not a question of being easily offended. It is a matter of awareness, of seeing. I saw that OP early today before Cali commented, and while I wasn't offended I did mentally note the use of a sexist phrase. I understand Cali's reaction because she is just starting to notice what is all around us. As someone eloquently pointed out in another thread, once you see, you cannot unsee. Some chose not to see. In fact, some are invested in not only not seeing themselves, but ensuring others remain blinded.

We see the same arguments in discussions about rape and domestic violence. They insist speaking about such crimes on this message board is "playing victim." Pointing out sexism or misogyny of any kind is "playing victim." They insist feminists such as myself and the rest of the evil HOF focus on unimportant matters. Yet I couldn't help but observe that when the issue of the Hobby Lobby decision came up, the same people who continually tell us how we focus on the trivial couldn't be bother to talk about a decision that instituted legal discrimination against women, if they weren't, like one recently banned troll, busy telling us how unimportant it is. Was that also trivial? Or are those of us who protest that decision also playing victim?

Speaking out against power, whether that be through a SCOTUS ruling, rape culture, or language (because as Michael Foucalt points out, "language is power') is not playing victim. Accommodating injustice is not strength. It is the opposite.

I'm not sure what the point of arguing that there was something trivial about Cali's reaction, given the PM that AAO sent to her. Clearly the man is a misogynist, and his PM confirmed it. She caught a glimpse of him through that phrase that others insist she should not have seen. She should not have commented on it. Well she did comment, and she was right. His word choice and, more importantly, reaction to concerns about it, were indicative of a far more serious contempt for women.

There was a post on the Feminazi forum about the Vagina Brigade banding together to alert on 'haters' getting them removed from teh DUmp site for sexist language. What we are seeing is a symptomatic purge of Wrong Thought Crimes against the victims with pussies. The DUmp is a mirror image of the world the Monkiez want to create and control. What we see here is what they want in their perfect world...

[RayRaytheSBS]

ali (94,370 posts)
32. so then it's opinion that Muslims have a predilection for terrorism and generally don't condemn it?

No, that is a fact. Until every so called 'moderate' Muslim including the ones in the United States condemns terrorists, I will not believe that the so- called 'religion of peace' is anything but a wolf in sheep's clothing. These DUches talk about using critical thinking, but have no idea what they are talking about.

[Carl]

Ignorant and insane children.

[Big Dog]

The seahag primitive

who would have thunk, we had all that power all along

You control half the money and all of the *****. I'd say you're doing pretty well in the power department.

[Big Dog]

The seahag primitive

i do not like it. i do not do it. my boys and husband cannot find a single time i have lied.

Sigmund Freud says, "Hmmmmmm."

The seahag primitive started out with lies, of course, but her third sentence gave her away. "My family hasn't caught me" is not the same as "I don't lie."

yet, a show, a little saying, society, gets to paint me as a liar because i am.... a woman.

Not because she's a woman. Because she's a DUmmy.

DUmmies lie. all the time.

[FiddyBeowulf]

JEFF9K (1,119 posts)
214. Please explain how what you said even begins to make sense.

The "f" word is used at this site all the time.

I assumed it first he was talking about the word "****" but another post later pointed out the "F" word is in fact talking about  . Who knew?

JEFF9K (1,119 posts)The "n" word is clearly offensive to 99.999% of educated people, and no one could possibly take issue with censoring its use in a negative context.

I am not sure but I think he just said people who use the "N" word and are not offended by it must be uneducated. Considering which group of people say that word the most he might want to rephrase that before he gets accused of being a racist.

[Zathras]

Ignorant and insane children.

What do you expect. They are DUmbasses after all. Being an ignorant and insane child is a resume enhancer for a DUmbass, not a detriment.

[JohnnyReb]

JEFF9K (1,119 posts)The "n" word is clearly offensive to 99.999% of educated people, and no one could possibly take issue with censoring its use in a negative context.

When I was young and the "N" word was in common use, it was always used in the negative sense. If a person of color was a useless POS, then the term applied to him/her. If a person of color was a good solid citizen type, then they were called colored and a white kid could get his head thumped for misusing the terms, applying them wrongly to a person of color.

When the democrats set out to decimate the character of people of color and placing them on their plantation for the next 200 years, the "N" word had to be attacked and eliminated from common use.....can't have people calling dark skin democrat voters what they really were. They had to elevate them to the higher caste, whether deserved or not, by eliminating the lower class reference or they might rebel.

[67 Rover]

Those broads in that thread need a Valium. 

[franksolich]

Those broads in that thread need a Valium. 

Uh, they need a lot more than just that.

[DefiantSix]

Uh, they need a lot more than just that.

I've been suggesting at the VRWC meetings for years now that we need to load vats of Thorazine into the Chem-Trails^® planes, but y'all keep shooting it down as too expensive...