[Marxism] Af-Pak is Obamaâ?Ts War

[Michael Smith]

On Mon, 18 May 2009 19:57:59 -0400
"S. Artesian" <sartesian at earthlink.net> wrote:
  
> Difference is one term is specifically gender related-- is a degrading term 
> based on the belief that women's sexuality is offensive.

Here you are assuming what you want to prove. What we *know* 
for a fact is that both kinds of terms -- "prick" and "cunt" 
-- are offensive. What you would like to demonstrate, if I read 
you correctly, is the "cunt" is somehow *more* offensive, because --

> The term derives its power from the inferior social status of women.

-- right? Maybe so, but as a native speaker of English, I have 
to say this just doesn't seem correct. "Prick" and "asshole" 
can earn you a punch in the jaw as quickly as "cunt".   

The offensiveness of these terms derives from the idea that 
sex (and excrement) are offensive, regardless which set of 
organs are involved. If "women's sexuality is offensive", as 
you say, so is men's. It's quite offensive to call somebody 
a "wanker", though wanking is something men do a great deal 
more than women, to the best of my knowledge. 

> Nobody has ever been denied equal pay, etc.  because they are, or have, a 
> "prick" or "an asshole."

But really, what does this have to do with anything? Cunts are 
paid less than pricks -- so we can't use the former word? This is 
unintelligible. 

For some years now I've observed, with great interest, the obsession
that liberals seem to have with the Diction Patrol. You can say 
this, you can't say that. It's as if they believed that controlling 
the words controls the thoughts, and controlling the thoughts controls 
the world. If you can't say "cunt" any more, then in no time, 4.5 
supreme court justices will possess one of these unmentionables. 

Diction-patrolling does not have a great history of success, 
however. People persist in using the words they want to use.

People. They're just no damn good.  

-- 

Michael Smith
mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org