If you can’t handle being called “Darlin’” how are you going to handle the responsibilities of high office?

“So, what is the Feministic of “Dude” -?”

Back in the late ’60s and early ’70s, here in the North West, all cool people, i.e. hippies, or any and all aspiring hippies, bikers, or drug dealers, referred to men as “dudes” (or “Old Man” for one’s boyfriend) and women as “chicks” (or “Old Lady” for one’s girlfriend). Both chicks and dudes used those terms to refer to themselves and their peers. It was all quite hip, or even far out, Man. Yeah– you had to use the term “Man” at the end of most sentences, Man, whether you were speaking to a dude of a chick. Like, can you dig it, Man? Are you hip? (or as a variation, “Are you hep?). To be really hip, you also had to have angst– to be a tortured soul (a victim) and the perpetrator was of course, The System.

It was only slightly confusing, in that “Old Man” or “Old Lady” might also be use to refer to one’s parents, depending on the company.

Interestingly, post modern feminism (at least the loud, bra-burning variety) seemed to take hold most easily within this same counter culture– a culture that treated women as much like objects (possessions) as any primitive culture that ever existed. In that case, they would have been responding in protest against a world of their own creation while blaming the outsiders for the very things they were practicing (projection).

My answer to crap like that usualy goes something like this “Fuck you, sweetheart.”

Really shortens the time I have to deal with them,and has the added benefit of not wasting any respect.

Basically, if the guy said darling like I call people honey, which is to say as innocuous as ‘dude’ or ‘man’, then there’s nothing to get anyone’s panties in a wad about. If he said it to be condescending, then his intent is where the ire should like, not in what words he chose.

Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

I figure it’s only fair to share the mental jukebox selection …

http://tinyurl.com/5pdgfe

Me, I’m too old to stop holding doors for or referring to women whose names I don’t know(or more likely don’t remember) as darlin’.

Guns are tools, and can be a means for self defense, and are one of the most effective means of immediate self defense for an individual under threat of attack. Guns allow both the threat of force (with no injury to the attacker should the attack stop) and the ability to project force upon others if they continue an attack, both before the attack reaches the potential victim and while an attack is ongoing.

Because guns project a possibly lethal level of force, they are an effective deterrent against attack in many cases, with potential and actual attacks often stopped upon the presentation of a gun in the hands of a potential victim. They also make the threat projected by the potential victim match or exceed that projected by the attacker, which can enable a potential victim to protect against an attacker.

Note that in the above paragraphs describing guns and self defense I have not used a single gender specific noun or pronoun. I propose that guns and their use in self defense are inherently non-sexist issues, equally applicable to all individuals, and that if feminists believe in the human right of individual self defense and the equality of all sexes they should support the use of guns as effective tools for self defense.

If not, can some feminist explain their supposed logic behind not supporting the human right to individual self defense, and having the means to effectively achieve it?

Or honey. I call everyone honey.

Now, what about “Dude” or “Man”. If someone says “Hey, man, blah blah blah” is that sexist?

The problem is intent. My intent is what is important, not how you interpret it. If I say someone is being niggardly, even if I’m in a room full of blacks, you have two choices of how to interpret it.

You can accept that I meant “stingy” or you claim that I intended to use a word that sounds close to the ‘N’ word to be insulting. What you cannot do (with any degree of logical consistency) is say you know that I meant stingy but that the word is offensive and shouldn’t be used. By attaching your own signifier to my words, you prevent me from being able to speak without fear of someone getting insulted.

Basically, if the guy said darling like I call people honey, which is to say as innocuous as ‘dude’ or ‘man’, then there’s nothing to get anyone’s panties in a wad about. If he said it to be condescending, then his intent is where the ire should like, not in what words he chose.

You’ll have to pardon me, but intentionalism is a major sticking point for me. I use it in my viewing of the Constitution and in my battle against political correctness.

Now, sweetcheeks, I’m off to do manly things like scratch myself in public and belch…

If you judge someone based on their trouser sausage or lack thereof, you are a sexist regardless of the outcome of your decision.

Granted, I’m openly sexist when I choose partners for the horizontal mambo. No offense, and all, but I don’t dig anyone’s Pole of Passion ‘cept my own.