Good point, even if I prefer more polite language.Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:
So could we please stow the misogynistic crap and figure out who our natural allies are and make common cause with them?
Women in pants
- Jim
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 1562
- Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:39 am
- Location: Northern Illinois, USA
Re: Women in pants
- Pdxfashionpioneer
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 1650
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:39 am
- Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: Women in pants
I said "please."
"misogynistic" is the proper way to speak of male chauvinistic piggery.
And "crap" is much more polite than its synonym.
"misogynistic" is the proper way to speak of male chauvinistic piggery.
And "crap" is much more polite than its synonym.
David, the PDX Fashion Pioneer
Social norms aren't changed by Congress or Parliament; they're changed by a sufficient number of people ignoring the existing ones and publicly practicing new ones.
Social norms aren't changed by Congress or Parliament; they're changed by a sufficient number of people ignoring the existing ones and publicly practicing new ones.
- crfriend
- Master Barista
- Posts: 14481
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
- Location: New England (U.S.)
- Contact:
Re: Women in pants
As an aside, calling me misogynistic" is about as far from the truth as one can get, and any one of my friends -- several of whom are women -- will attest. What I am laying into is the misandric mess that is now institutionalised in what passes for law in the USA. (Hilariously, the dictionary in Firefox does not know about the word "misandry". Are we not supposed to us it any longer?)Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:"misogynistic" is the proper way to speak of male chauvinistic piggery.
As far as what passes for the latest appointee to the US Supreme Court goes, that's the current president's "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. And, the questions I've been pondering recently include, "Does it really matter that we have a juvenile jock on the highest court of the land?" and "What role does a Supreme Court play in a post-Constitutional State?"
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
Re: Women in pants
It's just the most explicite example. You will find "for the occasion adapted use of the system" at many levels of organizations. mr. T plays the game of use the system to beat the system with the sole purpose of self gain.crfriend wrote:As an aside, calling me misogynistic" is about as far from the truth as one can get, and any one of my friends -- several of whom are women -- will attest. What I am laying into is the misandric mess that is now institutionalised in what passes for law in the USA. (Hilariously, the dictionary in Firefox does not know about the word "misandry". Are we not supposed to us it any longer?)Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:"misogynistic" is the proper way to speak of male chauvinistic piggery.
As far as what passes for the latest appointee to the US Supreme Court goes, that's the current president's "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. And, the questions I've been pondering recently include, "Does it really matter that we have a juvenile jock on the highest court of the land?" and "What role does a Supreme Court play in a post-Constitutional State?"