[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Women and GNU and RMS (was Re: something else)

From: Alexandre François Garreau
Subject: Re: Women and GNU and RMS (was Re: something else)
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 05:25:52 +0100

Hi, I like discussion.  This so because I like language.  And therefore, 

Le lundi 4 novembre 2019, 04:32:04 CET Ruben Safir a écrit :
> Nobody believes this except for a few hysterical lunitics.

I think you’re wrong about lunatism.  I think though mob attacks can seem 
really lunatic, they’re made by disinformed persons that tend to keep a sort 
of consistence within the few, probably unsufficient, knowledge they have about 
the situations they get in.

But now about “hysterical”, which has been hinted several times by several 
people (at least 3, maybe including me, I forgot) as a sexist insult.  You’ve 
been noted that was biologically impossible, and said you didn’t care.

Then, what’s you’re interpretation of it? is it just a random meaningless 
insult like “asshole”, just for people you don’t like? or is it more specific? 
for instance “crazy”? as it is used often for (after all, it comes from 
psychology (though from a part of it widely acknowledged as a pseudoscience).

May I propose a popular definition?  I find this term often used to describe 
women, but not only, being considered “too angry” (as the standard for 
acceptable feminine angriness generally meet a lower threshold, I guess), up 
to becoming irrational and uncontrolable (I take that from the third 
wiktionary definition, that talks about “uncontrolable laugh”).  I often saw 
people talking about “being hysteric” (including from women, including about 
men) when someone is excessively shouting, especially when in a very acute 
manner (that might arise when the person is beyond per limits, and shout the 
loudest).  It seems really linked to voice, to me.  Yet that definition being 
popular, usually not well connected to the sexist origin (sometimes people 
aren’t even aware of), and not necessarily about women, it seems to, for 
evidence reasons of voice biological characteristics, more be prone to target 
women, based on this definition (loud acute voice).

Now, what’s your definition? why do you qualify Sandra as such?  She seems 
disgusted, maybe irrational (but you’re emotional too, here), but on the 
internet, she can’t shout…  So what makes you say that? you only excessively 
dislike/hate people being against rms? or you think she’s crazy / so much 
irrational that deserve insults? so you think being crazy or irationnal make 
you deserve insult? or do you believe there’s a situation where a person could 
receive such insults calmly and agree?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]