--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > <snip> > > > Here's the real issue: It simply doesn't occur > > > to men who don't have an underlying streak of > > > misogyny to insult/attack/criticize a woman > > > using terms that denigrate her on the basis of > > > her gender. > > > > > > Doing so is therefore a sure sign of a bad > > > attitude toward women. *Especially* in a > > > person who styles himself a writer, I might add, > > > because he presumably has a larger and more > > > varied vocabulary on which to draw to formulate > > > his criticisms/insults/attacks. > > > > > > It's a dead giveaway. And the pretense here is > > > all yours. > > > > Actually, I've found that using gender-neutral > > terms when insulting a woman gets a MUCH bigger > > response. Example called a woman a "jerk" once > > instead of a "bitch." She was quite upset. > > That's not surprising. In my experience, women > tend to take gender-based insults a lot less > seriously *personally* because the guy who uses > them is so obviously a loser. He's handed them > a weapon to use against him; he's virtually > declared that his point of view is worthless, > grounded in misogyny rather than any real > complaint against the woman. >
That was my intuition, though, her behavior was jerky because it WAS sex-based (literally). Lawson
