Potty-Mouthed Princesses Drop F-Bombs for Feminism by FCKH8.com

Well said, Lordy, agree with all of it.

I repeat this post as the original had the username in blue as it was a reply to him/her or it.
Reviewing that post, the username has gone and it now appears as if I was referring to Linkat, who now appears directly above. I can only assume that a hamster deleted the offending post which appeared between us.

Please let me make it clear to Linkat that I was referring to the him/her or it troll, and not to you.

It has since sent me a silly PM and I have asked it not to send any more. I hope it soon disappears.

I didn't take it directed at me - I actually went back and tried to find what someone said - didn't realize that a post could be deleted.

I am aware that use of this language among young people is far more pervasive than I would like, but, for now, it still is something that most often happens within their peer groups rather than in normal social social discourse, and, of course, we still (thankfully) have not reached a point where this level of swearing is acceptable in normal social discourse --- even by adults. I return to my point that if the swearing was not deemed inappropriate by the vast majority of society, it would not have been used in the commercial.

I hope it will be quite a long time before this video is seen as innocuous.

I didn't take much away from the video, and not simply because I object to the use of profanity by young girls. It's obviously repetitive, and to a fault. Once the shock registers it's difficult to absorb what the young girls are saying beyond swearing. If I'm correct there was only one sexual reference towards the end (something about their asses) which wasn't so much offensive as absurd. Unless one is a pedophile, listening to a very young girl complain about men focusing on her ass is almost comical.

So the main thrust of the controversy, it seems, is the swearing. It should be clear to anyone who reads my posts that I do not find the use of profanity to be verboten; and a serious breach of communication protocol, but they will also recognize that I don't use it gratuitously either. (I'm reminded of hearing someone respond to his friend's comment with "******* so what?) Profanity has it's place in communication and they are, after all, just words, but to a large degree it has represented the outer boundary of what is acceptable in civil society. Why profanity has been given that role is a topic for another discussion; suffice it to say that we all (still) know that when it is used in a great many situations, a line is being crossed.

That Line has always existed and always will (assuming we don't sink into the utter chaos of a totally broken society), and if it is extended to accept profanity in virtually all communication; by all age groups, those who feel the need to be iconoclastic and edgy, won't release a collective sigh and announce that they now feel properly unrestrained. Slippery Slope arguments generally are poorly received in this forum, but in this case, I believe one is appropriate.

When little girls regularly swear like troopers on TV and at the dinner tables, there will still be people who want to sell tee-shirts or convey important messages who feel they need to grab our attention by crossing the Line. How they will then do so can only be imagined, but we can be certain that they will try.

It is ironic, of course, that with constant and gratuitous use of profanity the usage is robbed of it's original intended effect. I remember, as a kid, when one of my friends told me that "****" was the worst curse word. Up until then, based on my parents' vocabulary, I believed "****" held than honor and was actually amused that a word that, to me, sounded funny and was totally abstract (even my more worldly friend didn't know what the word was intended to mean) could hold the greatest of language taboos. I actually found myself repeating it over and over and quite loudly, as my friend begged me to shut up. That evening, as kids will, I asked my parents if "****" was a bad word and what it meant. Their reaction was as you might expect and immediately the word became taboo for me too. Once I hit the age when kids play with taboos I began to use the word myself, and still do, but never around my kids, and only carefully in social situations. When I hear someone at a party or in a business meeting repeatedly using the word, I'm not offended, but I do think less of the person if only for being linquistically lazy, and insensitive to the sensitivity of those around them.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are artificial limits to social behavior that are there for good reason, and while they may be extended to include what was once taboo, they are not going to disappear altogether. We have structured these limits such that they are far more restraining when it comes to children as opposed to adults and I think that is also for good reason. I generally find efforts to extend the Line or cross it, by adults, to be obvious and usually boring, but admit that when it is done with children, I find it offensive and troubling.

If this commercial had consisted of three or four adult women yelling the same profane statements, it wouldn't have been considered edgy or drawn a lot of attention. Instead it involved the seeming, if not actual, corruption of children for which there is no rationale that I can accept, and that it was, ultimately, for commercial gain makes it that much more despicable.

I hope that it the taboos of language for children don't completely breakdown in my lifetime, and not because it's so horrible to hear a kid use "****," but because at that point there will still be cynical and or wrong headed bastards that feel they need to cross the Line in a big way and I can only imagine what will be next as respects the exploitation of children for commercial or ideological gain.

Whether or not the underlying message of this commercial is accurate or "important" is, to me, irrelevant. Exploiting children was not the only way to convey it or bring attention to it (It's not as if the world has been hitherto silent on these issues), and I think responding to it with "Well, it is an important message." indicates a degree of acceptance for the corruption of children that I find as objectionable as the commercial. What would a commercial have to do to obliterate it's message? Kill someone on screen? The truth is that nothing so drastic would be required for most of the folks who are willing to overlook the manner in which the message was conveyed by this ad. Anything racially insensitive or perceived as homophobic would do the trick.

You're lucky they didn't send you to see a psychiatrist.

Only in your mind, and only because you overgeneralize from a handful of particular individuals to a huge movement--and a global movement-- that includes many men.

Try acquainting yourself with feminism--by familiarizing yourself with the largest feminist organization in the U.S.--The National Organization for Women---and point out where they engage in "illogical arguments and anti-male sentiments".
http://now.org/about/
You just don't know much about "feminism" as a movement, even in the United States.

I'd consider Malala Yousafzai, who just became the youngest winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, very much a feminist, and one whose message has been heard by far more people than any of those few that make you wince. Does she turn you off too?

Why is the word "feminism" more important than the ideals you say it represents.

Of course I respect Malala. She is a brave woman who stands for very powerful ideals.

The labels don't matter. She calls herself a Muslim. She may call herself a Feminist. Who cares?

I respect what this young woman did. When she stands up for education and rights for women and girls I fully support her. I don't care what she calls herself.

I wonder what Malala would think about the feminist video that started this thread.

Oh, when someone calls you a sexist when they cannot make an argument, it's 100% clear - no smoke and mirrors - what "feminism" we're discussing at this point.

Or when you refer to a person as a movement, instead of referring to them as a person with ideas that are good ideas, who cares if its feminist ideas or new feminist ideas or not-so feminist ideas. Who the **** cares. Shut the **** up about your labels, you are the ones that are unstable - end of story.

Anyone can say "but no... we're talking about the real feminism". Stop with the excuses and just admit that there's a lot of informational poison right here in front of you, FF. We don't need people like HH who call you a racist when you tell them facts about the male/female bodily functions' differences.

You're the one who makes a big deal of the words "feminism" or "feminist"--with seemingly no knowledge of what the main feminist organization in the country is actually doing, or saying, or working toward achieving.

All I see you doing is overgeneralizing and promoting inaccurate. and bigoted, negative stereotypes of an extremely large and diverse group.

I repeat what I said before...

Try acquainting yourself with feminism--by familiarizing yourself with the largest feminist organization in the U.S.--The National Organization for Women---and point out where they engage in "illogical arguments and anti-male sentiments".
http://now.org/about/
You just don't know much about "feminism" as a movement, even in the United States.

No, YOU make a big deal out of a ******* word.

Grow up.

This is getting silly. Feminism is not sacred.

I criticize capitalism. I criticize conservatism. I criticize liberalism and socialism. I criticize all sorts of -ism's, even though I agree with parts of all of them. You are acting like criticizing feminism is the same as criticizing women. It isn't.

NOW is a political group.As a political junky I know a fair amount about them. I agree with them on many things, but I disagree with them enough on specific issues that I don't send them any money. I am certainly not a member. If you want specifics, their position on domestic violence reform and the yes means yes legislation are enough to keep me away.

This conversation is getting beyond silly... and in truth it doesn't really matter. Maybe that is the point.

Ok, let me explain - amputees are the more at risk of cardiovascular disease than the general population. Now do you think their hearts are biologically different?

Try to remember the classic road directions. "You can't get there from here."

It goes like this:

Heart Disease
--------|
---Amputees
-------/---\
Male---Female

In other words, you are purposely avoiding the tandems.

Amputees are more at risk, but their heart's diseases will change depending on their gender because of biological laws being different between the genders.

I said I'd mark you on the sexist side of the ledger because you said these things:



These are copy and paste. And you are free to defend them as non-sexist. I admit they could just be ignorance. But given how intelligent and above it all you constantly say you are, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed these were your considered opinions. On that grounds they certainly look sexist to me. But it's just my opinion.

I still am not in the mood to look at this, but will, maybe tomorrow. In the meantime, I've been following the conversation.

I'm something like a decade older than Finn, maybe a little more. I was an only child, privileged for a while, sheltered largely, largely by my very religious mother. My father was religious too, but differently so. We moved quite a bit for military reasons, job reasons, better job reasons, some possible job reasons.

At age eighteen, long after that early privileged life, but still sheltered, I asked a then best girlfriend (I'm a female) what **** meant. She wouldn't tell me. I had read some novels by then, but was basically ignorant except that one could desire someone else, and I had my own crushes, in books and for football players I watched, and once I got a job after school, for various guys at work (I had gone to a strict girls school). But I was wildly ignorant.

When I was a sophomore at a university and had some friends in my zoology classes, some few of them girls (we called ourselves that, then) and some boys. I remember Manny saying RF and asking what's that and him trying to tell me, rat function. I said what? he said, *******, and I said, what? (poor guy, to tell me)

Those were learning years, and thank my lucky stars for that. (Manny asked me to his wedding, as it happened, sometime later.)
Skipping along, my great appreciation in my life is that I got to go to a then tuition free university and learn how varied the world is. A lot of who I am now, as a loudmouth some of the time, is for all those silent years. I get swearing, as I did in an early post here in jest.

So what, re the subject at hand -

1) I am already repelled by this era's young girls dropping f-bombs for feminism, as a concept. This is a plastic mockery that seems, worked by the producers, still saying as someone who hasn't looked at it yet, as not about feminism but shock formation for some new media based reason.

2) on feminism, I'm not responding to max on that again. He does not listen.
I'm not the least bit against due process for males in Massachusetts or anywhere else and have said so.

I was around when women did not get accepted to med schools.
Well, sometimes one or four, out of, say, ninety, but mostly zeros across the US and Canada.

I'm no academic apparently yelling feminist. I'm an ordinary one, and we are many.

Women are complicated. Their entire psychical domain comes from the qualities of a black hole - the "life maker", the "becoming of", the "experience which absorbs". This is why women's emotions are far more complex than a man's emotions. Women are constantly changing from one color to another - women are also scientifically more versed with the language of human senses than men. That's not being sexist - that's being scientific. Women suicide more often by poison than explosion - black holes consume themselves upon death. Failure women become prostitutes - successful women become geniuses.

Men are not complicated. They can't be because they never last long. They build up energy, they release that energy - they build it up again. When a man orgasms, they forget a lot after the initiate climax because that energy they built up is no longer present. Their psychical domain comes from the qualities of the star - the "life giver", the "releasing of", the "experience which explodes". This is why men's emotions are far more linear than women's emotions. However, males are very systematical and irritating in their own way as females are very emotional and irritating in their own way. Males suicide more often by explosion than poison - stars explode from within upon death. Failure men become business men - successful men become geniuses.

Disagreeing with you is not the same as not listening. I am listening... I just don't like what I am hearing.

You said men and women were designed at the 'subatomic level' differently down to their hearts. This is patently false. Hearts are not biologically different. Guess what? Heart transplants are done between genders.

This is all a sideshow you use to distract from the discussion gender equality is not about physical equality - it's about social equity. That you grasp this bio difference thing with both hands and shake the bejeezus out of it does strike me as odd.


I looked up biological laws - there are few and none of them mention gender.

Try and be calm and think about this - I wouldn't want you to pull a muscle writing in big pink font again.