 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Do you want to hear a joke? |
|
|
|
 |
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | While this doesn't in any way justify Leyonhjelm's comments, and while his characterisation of her comment was false, I think there's a legitimate syntactical ambiguity in comments like Hanson-Young's that is rarely acknowledged (and in this case, as far as I'm aware, hasn't been acknowledged by either party). A claim with a plural noun (group x) as subject without a determiner is ambiguous because it can mean either "[various members of] group x" or "group x [as a category]". Consider the following phrases:
"Americans are stupid."
"Cats prefer dry cat food."
"The planets of the Solar System revolve around the Sun."
In each of those examples, does it sound like I'm referring to all Americans/cats/planets, or just some of them? At best, it's ambiguous; but I suspect that most of us would instinctively presume that I'm talking about all of them so much so that it would probably be superfluous for me to add the 'all'.
This isn't always the case, though. Compare:
"Children love Play School."
"Australians need to stop behaving badly overseas."
"Having a job is not much fun."
In those cases, it's still possible that I could be generalising, but in context it seems like I'm probably not after all, we know that Australians don't all behave badly overseas, and that not all children have seen Play School let alone loved it. But these are still problematic sentences; in each case, it would be appropriate to add "some" (or some other qualifier) to reduce any chance of ambiguity:
"A lot of children love Play School."
"Australians with a tendency to behave badly overseas need to stop doing so."
"Having a job can be not much fun."
When this sentence configuration is moved to (more) fraught political topics, I would argue that the qualifier becomes essential if for no other reason than to protect you from being misinterpreted:
"Muslims need to stop murdering innocent people."
"Women aren't funny."
"Gay men have sexually transmitted illnesses."
"African-American men need to stop joining gangs."
All of the comments above are simultaneously true (if we take the "various members" definition) and deeply, deeply inflammatory (if, as is likely, they are interpreted as categorical claims). So I don't know why so many people act as if starting such a sentence with "men" is a) absolutely defensible and b) not likely to be interpreted by anyone acting in good faith as constituting a derogatory generalisation.
Context usually helps us work these things out; most of us understand, for instance, that Hanson-Young was not saying that all men are rapists or that she wanted to insidiously convey that. But the trouble with the saying "men need to stop raping women" is that it has become a self-contained slogan, and thus is often stated without context. By saying this as an isolated sentence (as it appears to have been) and not choosing her words more carefully, Hanson-Young was ensuring that some people would (without acting in bad faith) interpret what she said as a derogatory remark about men in general. That was an entirely avoidable situation, and had she been more careful about her wording, Leyonhjelm would still be a 24-karat jerk, but I doubt we'd be having this conversation right now.
Here's one alternative of many: "Women don't need weapons to protect themselves; those men who victimise women just need to stop doing so."
For those who disagree with anything I've said here, please tell me where I'm wrong. |
Like what you wrote. Leyonhjolm heard what he wanted to hear though in his mendacious way. Hanson-Young needed to clarify what she heard so she asked him straight up.
I don't blame Hanson-Young for her response that enough is enough. I need to read more about slut shaming and what it is but Leyonholm made references to her alleged "reputation" again personalizing to women. This would never or rarely happen to men in a similar way. And this thread asked, is this sexist. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3wQ4vxN1V4
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
thesoretoothsayer
Joined: 26 Apr 2017
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Quote: | | And this thread asked, is this sexist. |
Well, I asked the question, and, given the information available at the time, I think it was a legitimate question.
If Senator Leyonhjelm responded to the statement of "all men are rapists" with the statement of "well, stop shagging men", I wouldn't consider his reply sexist. I would consider it a riposte that exposed Senator Hanson-Young's hypocrisy. After all, if all men are horrible rapists why would you seek to have relationships with them?
However, Leyonhjelm cannot establish that Hanson-Young ever said this and his subsequent comments are reprehensible. So I think he's made himself look like an obnoxious tool. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| thesoretoothsayer wrote: | | Quote: | | And this thread asked, is this sexist. |
Well, I asked the question, and, given the information available at the time, I think it was a legitimate question.
If Senator Leyonhjelm responded to the statement of "all men are rapists" with the statement of "well, stop shagging men", I wouldn't consider his reply sexist. I would consider it a riposte that exposed Senator Hanson-Young's hypocrisy. After all, if all men are horrible rapists why would you seek to have relationships with them?
However, Leyonhjelm cannot establish that Hanson-Young ever said this and his subsequent comments are reprehensible. So I think he's made himself look like an obnoxious tool. |
It's more than that he merely "cannot establish" that was said - he was repeatedly played the recording of what was said during the interview I heard this morning and nevertheless continued to assert that it amounted to the same thing. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ I only listened to the first half of the interview, but my strongest impression was the inquisitorial and highly prejudicial stance of the interviewer. I do not believe that Sen Hanson-Young would have been subjected to the same kind of overtly hostile questioning ; and that partisan interview style would not have been permitted on the BBC.
Partly because of the barracking by this interviewer, Leyonhjelm didnt do himself any favors because he failed to instil a clear message, despite having two substantive points to make : first, that she did not limit the meaning of men in her statement (imagine if a man had said that about women) ; and secondly, that she has an objectively terrible record of unparliamentary behaviour. She is a crybully who hands it out and cries foul when she gets it back. He made these points, but harassed by an interviewer who played am-dram martinet, he did not hammer them home.
I dont know what he has said in other contexts about actual relationships she may or may not have had. If he did say something to that effect, he damaged his case. In truth, of course, he could have made the same points without personalizing it at all, which would have been far wiser.
Davids comments elsewhere on the linguistics are very good.
_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Last edited by Mugwump on Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:05 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yeah, I have to say I wasnt on the ABC guys side in the interview (while he was right to point out the baselessness of Leyonhjelms accusations of misandry, he didnt actually engage with that discussion at all or why it could conceivably be an issue). As one particular case in point, I dont know any self-proclaimed feminist who would argue that its sexist to tell Peta Credlin (as opposed to a man) to STFU; surely the real old-world sexism is claiming that ladies shouldnt be spoken to so rudely. This is where the respect for women discourse can be a bit confusing and contradictory at times.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | ^ I o yo listened to this first half of the interview, but my strongest impression was the inquisitorial and highly prejudicial stance of the interviewer. ..... |
The interviewer's inquisitorial style is the way he interviews most people most of the time that I'm aware of: left, right, middle, man, woman etc. in my experence of listening to him.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | | ^ I o yo listened to this first half of the interview, but my strongest impression was the inquisitorial and highly prejudicial stance of the interviewer. ..... |
The interviewer's inquisitorial style is the way he interviews most people most of the time that I'm aware of: left, right, middle, man, woman etc. in my experence of listening to him. |
Ok. He seems like a self-righteous goose who wants to make himself the subject of the interview, and I can imagine he does it elsewhere.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | | ^ I o yo listened to this first half of the interview, but my strongest impression was the inquisitorial and highly prejudicial stance of the interviewer. ..... |
The interviewer's inquisitorial style is the way he interviews most people most of the time that I'm aware of: left, right, middle, man, woman etc. in my experence of listening to him. |
Ok. He seems like a self-righteous goose who wants to make himself the subject of the interview, and I can imagine he does it elsewhere. |
That I would agree with.
Give me Fran Kelly or Sarah Ferguson any day of the week
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Gees the crap that flies around parliament, and this is still going strong? No wonder politics gets so $%$ed up! Say sorry, let it go. How $$%^%%$ ridiculous.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
thesoretoothsayer
Joined: 26 Apr 2017
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Following on from David's comments about ambiguity. When Senator Hanson-Young says:
| Quote: | | I think women around this country are sick and tired of being made to feel responsible for the fact that men cannot control themselves and deal with their own issues. |
Is she talking about all men or just sexual predators? And if we change a couple of words does it sound like a comment about individuals or a group of people?
| Quote: | | I think people around this country are sick and tired of being made to feel responsible for the fact that aboriginies cannot control themselves and deal with their own issues. |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UicmJWUgPdE |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
By declaring that she was saying 'all men', Leyonhjelm is just as wrong as those who claim that such interpretations are impossible and that she could have only been talking about individuals. It was a syntactically ambiguous statement that could have meant either, and you're right, sts, that the sentence would look pretty bad if it was referring to a disadvantaged minority group.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
|
|
|
|
partypie
Joined: 01 Oct 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| DL is an unattractive attention seeker adding nothing to running the country better |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
