I got into a Twitter fight with Scalzi and it ended up on Twitchy

I got into a Twitter fight with author John Scalzi yesterday. There’s no need to write up a blog post detailing that because Twitchy already did it for me. Thanks, Twitchy!

http://twitchy.com/2014/06/19/monster-hunter-author-larry-correia-targeted-for-departing-from-rape-culture-orthodoxy/

Fun stuff.

265 Responses

  1. Scalzi is insufferable. He’s as arrogant as Saturday is long (June 21st get it?)

  2. And let me just say that that was a fun case of Whack-A-Troll. ;)

  3. Scalzi is blogging today about how guns aren’t good for self-defense. Strangely enough, not a single reference to the Larry Correia article that started it all, or even to Hines. Someone reading his blog who was unaware of the Great Twitter Throwdown would have no idea what prompted this.

    Unlike Scalzi, I’ll provide a link ;-) :

    http://whatever.scalzi.com/2014/06/19/a-former-marine-corps-weapons-instructor-on-the-desirability-of-guns-for-self-defense/

    • Department of Justice apparently disagrees with Scalzi:

      http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/campus/Pages/decrease-risk.aspx

      “Don’t resist, it just makes it worse,” we are told by the Left.

      What a contemptible lie.

      • Really, that’s more about how they want you to react to their inexorable progress toward the dictatorship of the proletariat and the ultimate workers’ paradise.

    • For home defense, I doubt you’ll do better than a large dog, but I have nothing against guns either. Most of the stats I’ve seen end up including the ‘husband kills wife on purpose with their gun’ as a gun getting turned against you. That seems problematic in many ways.

      And man, that linked article to the former marine is not terribly convincing.

      • I love dogs and would encourage folks to have and cherish them for many reasons, home defense among them. Still, a prepared invader can incapacitate the largest and most aggressive dog with a squirt of pepper spray or a handful of cayenne pepper. This is why you back up your best friend with a firearm.

        Our dog stopped a fellow who pushed past my wife when she answered the door – he saw Luna charging and made a very quick exit. She grabbed her pistol just in case the guy came back, checked to make sure, then gave Luna the steak we were going to have for supper. A happy ending! Have the dog, but don’t depend on them to do it all.

      • I always thought that any bad guys that break into my house would have to be touched in the head. Who would break into a house with two Great Danes? Specially since Heavy Jake Harlequin is 150lbs of “WTF are you doing at MY house” if anyone so much as knocks. At the very least a big dog buys seconds of response time.

      • Most of that article can be narrowed down to one simple word, Training. Training on how your gun works, (it also begs the question who the hell field strip their weapon before storing it under their bed,) training in how to shoot said weapon, training in weapons retention, and training on how to react to different scenarios. Guess what, most of that training can be found in the classes Larry was advocating in the first place. His point on shooting to kill and not maim was a semi-valid point, (it ignores the hundred of cases where the sudden and unannounced presence of a firearm has, in fact de-escalated the situation) as was his point of layering your home’s defenses, but other than that the whole article was just condescending poppycock.

    • And the reason that John Scalzi should be listened to is, what exactly?

      I mean, what particular expertise does he have that’s remotely relevant for such a thing?

      Oh, that’s right. None.

      • I’m a military veteran, a brown belt judoka, and shooter with some small experience. What exactly are Scalzi’s credentials for use of force exactly?

      • As a veteran and man who spent the last decade studying violence and the asshole who use it to prey on others, I’ve got to say I can’t see a damn thing he’s done that qualifies him to have anything to say on it.

  4. Larry (and his readers) 1, Scalzi 0 –Wow, like the score of a World Cup game, but far more entertaining. I defy anyone to name an instance where a shot dead rapist ever committed the crime again. Seems more effective than “Rape is naughty” from a bunch of celebs.
    BTW, Nemesis was awesome, next please!

  5. I wonder how Scalzi would react if I ran his books out to the range for a few dozen rounds of .45ACP review…..

  6. > Strangely enough, not a single reference

    “Strange” – hah!

    Scalzi exemplifies most of the worst traits of teenaged girls – a desire to win rather than to be right, a desire to destroy people’s reputations rather than engage with their ideas, a desire to preach to the chorus rather than engage with adversaries.

  7. In truth, you can be a bit churlish, and Scalzi is a pussy…

  8. I love the accusation that you’re being passive aggressive, Larry. Like it isn’t obvious with the MHI logo that you like smilies.

  9. The only thing better than smacking around a lefty douchenozzle is when the smack-around gets on Twitchy. Large audience, new readers, get paid!

    • Haha no kidding. Check out the comments – lots of plugging of Larry’s books. Don’t know numbers of Twitchy’s views, but it has to be up there. Great new audience to be exposed to for sure.

      • lots of plugging of Larry’s books.

        (innocent look)
        I’m certain that I have no clue as to what you may be referring…

  10. I am touched by the immense irony of your detractors, Larry. Remember, this whole debate started because they attacked a woman, namely Miss Nevada. And, after attacking her, they dare insinuate that her supporters are somehow “pro-rape”.

    The truth is much more sinister: yes, Scalzi and Mary Robinette Kowal are anti-rape, but they are also anti-gun, and when caught between a rock and a hard place, their anti-gun instincts trump their anti-rape ideals. So, for them, it is better that a few women get raped if it keeps guns off the streets.

    I am sick and tired of people like that.

  11. Mr. Correia, I had an enjoyable time reading the Twitchy transcript of your’s and Mr Scalzi’s Twitter battle; very entertaining. As for the word that Mr. Scalzi cited that you can be misogynistic in your word choices, he is spot on with this example. The very definition of the word,
    a weak, cowardly, or effeminate man, implies the inherent weakness of being a woman and the superiority of “being a man.” As misogynist is defined as a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women, I believe Mr Scalzi to be on point. Granted you may not have given thought to this. I believe your use of language reflects the culture you were raised (and one I do not think needs to be disparaged). It does however put emphasis on “being a man” and that weakness is not tolerated, and strength lauded. As such, the term you chose is often use as a counter to that. Because of your background and for a great number of us, we often don’t think of the ramifications of using, what many would say, an innocuous word. I for one don’t believe you are a misogynist, the women characters you create are often tough, smart and resourceful. You do a very good job in helping to dispense the notion women are the weaker gender, however Mr Scalzi was correct, the word is used to imply that a man is as weak as a woman. Thank you for writing, as your books are delightful and entertaining. Even though your political views are not mine, I enjoy your work and am looking forward to reading more.

    • Are men and women equal? (Not: “equal before the law”, but “equal in all aspects”)

      • Equal in terms of what? Physical strength? Intelligence? Toughness? If it is physical strength of course not and there in lies the issue. Physical strength is not the barometer by which we should gauge which gender is superior and by using a word that is associated with weakness we still give credence to that philosophy. As for toughness, well women got men beat. Hands down.

      • Physical strength is not the barometer by which we should gauge which gender is superior

        Did anybody say anything about superior or inferior?

      • Of course not, but as a reader I inferred you were implying that men and women are not equal in all respects and the the use of the word derives from the fact that men hold a SUPERIOR edge in strength and women are then in fact weaker. Would you have been happier if I had written, “Men strong, women not as much”? So now let’s focus on my word choice and not the issue. Awesome. Plain and simple the word is misogynistic in origin. There is no getting around that. Does it imply that to use the word one is hateful towards women? No. No way. Unh uh.

      • I inferred

        That’s on you.

        BTW, care to define “toughness” in a way that’s mensurable and thus allowing for comparison to justify your claim regarding that? Or is that just rah-rah?

      • Here you go: Childbirth.

      • I’ll see your childbirth and raise you kidney stones. I have it on good, female, authority that the latter are much more painful.

      • Have had kidney stones. Painful. Yet they are usual not the size of a watermelon. And you don’t consciously choose to have them, again. A lot of women have more than one child and to go through it again is awe inspiring.

      • Yet they are usual not the size of a watermelon.

        And babies don’t generally come with sharp jagged points and edges. And the vagina is a bit larger and more elastic than the urethera.

        As for “choose to have them” how many women have I heard say “you forget all the pain when you first hold your baby.” The mind has a remarkable way of “fuzzing” and distancing itself from painful events, particularly when paired with joyous ones.

        But, for sake of argument, let’s ignore all that and give you everything there regarding childbirth. Childbirth is still a very specific case. The “toughness” involved in that does not appear to translate elsewhere. It doesn’t translate into carrying over a hundred pounds of gear, day after day, in 100+ degree heat, in an environment where people are trying to kill you. It doesn’t translate into keeping your legs pumping at anaerobic threshold, and maybe a bit beyond, for hours while lactic acid builds up in your muscles until every breath screams with pain. And so on and so on and so on.

        Not saying women can’t have that kind of toughness but if they do the reason is not “childbirth”.

      • Urethras are much narrower than vaginal canals, and didn’t evolve to distend that much. You also don’t get a hormonal rush, nor a child, nor a lot of orgasms, with kidney stones.

        Regardless, that’s second hand. As thewriterinblack said, childbirth (the painful part) is involuntary. Enduring something that’s unavoidable once you’ve gotten knocked up might be impressive, but it says nothing about the relative toughness of the sexes.

      • Childbirth

        Ah, that one. Somehow I knew you were going there.

        You are aware, are you not, that once you reach a certain point, that baby is coming out, whether one wants it to or not. Scream, object, wish otherwise all you want, it’s going to happen. One cannot take credit for involuntary reflexes.

        Consider instead another issue which involves pain. I used to do competitive bicycling. One of the truths of the sport is that the winner is the one who can push deeper into pain and maintain it longer than the others. It’s very much a “toughness” game. Riding over 100 miles at competition speeds hurts. A lot. So why aren’t the women beating the men?

        There are numerous activities where a big part of it is being able to push past the pain and keep going. How is this “toughness” expressing itself there?

      • Married? Have kids? Siting with some nice ladies and showed them your response. Much laughter ensued. My opinion child birth is awe inspiring. And to do it again willing is unbelievable. Your analogy just shows that yes men are SUPERIOR at physical activities and can have better times than women; does that mean women aren’t out there competing? Um no. Check out the 100 mile running endurance races women do well. Historically women have been the cornerstone upon which society has been built. Staying home raising children, making all that makes a home and in the modern era finding a place within a work place that was most un-welcolmeing, without giving up. Plus they have to deal with us on a daily basis. Now that’s tough.

      • Married? Have kids?

        As a matter of fact, yes.

        Your analogy just shows that yes men are SUPERIOR at physical activities and can have better times than women; does that mean women aren’t out there competing?

        Your claim was that women were tougher. Thank you for the concession that you were wrong.

        Check out the 100 mile running endurance races women do well.

        Your claim was “tougher.” So compare those with the men’s times, hmm.

        Now that’s tough.

        The correct answer is “no, I don’t have any mensurable standards by which a comparison can be made; all I have is rah-rah.”

      • Ok now some science. Women seem to have two more things going for them. First, they keep their immune system troops on active duty for longer.
        A large study by Japanese researchers recently found that although we all produce fewer B-cells and T-cells — key players in the immune system — as we get older, the decline is more rapid in men than women.
        Women also seem to be getting added protection from having two X chromosomes — which is what makes them women — while men have an X and a Y.
        Recently, it was found that the genes for making the T-cells that can target cancer cells are located on the X chromosome. That gives women a better chance of having them available than men. And as such live longer.

      • [stuff about B and T cells and how they decline with age] And as such live longer.

        Congratulations! You finally found something on which to back your claim. Old women have better immune systems (by this one measure) than old men.

        I’ll give you this too: women are less likely to have hemophilia than men because the relevant gene is recessive but carried on the X chromosome so the only way for it to end up paired in women is to have a carrier or hemophiliac mother and a hemophiliac father.

        This is called “grasping at straws”.

        Nobody has claimed that there weren’t areas where women had advantages over men. Your specific claim of them being tougher “hands down” was challenged.

      • And I replied. And won. HA!

      • And won.

        Bwahahahahahaha. Whatever you say:

      • Damn, I missed the closing blockquote. Larry, if you have an edit function, can you fix that? the closing blockquote comes after “live longer.”

      • Interesting that you used the word “superior” in there. Where did I imply that one is superior to the other, or even raise that question?

      • Yeah, that’s why women aren’t drafted into the army; men are afraid a magic barometer will appear and make them look stoopid.

      • re: thewriterinblack

        It’s a feature. Larry wants the hater’s word to be permanent. No editing. You can always add another post for clarification, but no editing, no deletion.

    • Greg,

      Wil Wheaton has an entire website called http://dontbeadickday.com/

      Wheaton and Scalzi have collaborated on a number of projects and I believe that they are friends.

      I doubt that Mr. Scalzi considers Mr. Wheaton a sexist.

      Calling someone a dick is perfectly fine, it seems, but calling someone a pussy is sexist.

      I do not see Mr. Scalzi calling Mr. Wheaton a sexist. I do not think that Wheaton is sexist, but according to Scalzi’s logic he should be, no?

      The truth is that both ‘pussy’ and ‘dick’ have become figures of speech. Unfortunate ones they may be, but using them does not a sexist make.

      To sum, neither Wheaton nor Correia are sexists for using these words. Mr. Scalzi should know better.

      • Once again a word that infers certain characteristics that are effective of negative attributes associated with gender. Dick implies an uncaring, uncouth man. It too falls within the same context of pussy. Also I don’t believe Mr Scalzi called anyone a misogynist rather he pointed out that use of certain words do in fact reflect misogyny and that many readers are not aware of the connotations. Like the word dick which at roots is derogatory towards men.

      • Also I don’t believe Mr Scalzi called anyone a misogynist

        Your belief is touching, but it falls short of reality.

        He did call folk “misogynists”, in so many words.

      • Well if we are to hold ourselves to the same criteria can you cite a direct quote where he said Mr Correia’s readers were in fact misogynists? All I read was that he stated we were “unaware”.

      • Are you kidding? Scalzi never says anything directly! :D He’s a master of pedantic wankery and insinuations (which is why I called him a pussy, because if you’re going to say something, just come the hell out and say it already).

      • Re-read. Nope doesn’t say anything directly, but as you bring your own schema to reading I can see where you can infer he is calling you a misogynist. I however infer that he is implying that we readers may not understand that some words do reflect misogyny etc. I don’t find it condemning, rather it enlightens one to the nuances such words contain.

      • He stated that Correia was unaware of the misogyny in his comments. Not quite what you just said there.

      • Kind of exactly what I wrote, so I am confused.

      • I am confused.

        I know you are. The only question is whether it’s deliberate.

        No, what you wrote, and my paraphrase of Scalzi is not the same thing.

      • So what does wishing I’d die in a fire “infer?” That I don’t? Where’s Scalzi or a single one of those pedantic semantic muffins on that one? No where. That’s cuz they’re not siding with right and wrong, but being pussies and kissing QUILTBAG ass.

      • @Greg Wirtala: 120 characters and you ‘infer’ something that is never said or even implied? Bullshit.

      • I’m sorry, but this “calling someone a pussy is sexist” thing is absolute bullshit.

        It’s nothing more than the typical crap of trying to control people by controlling the language. If you don’t like something, then deem it offensive and squash it like a bug, but heaven forbid you address the overall point.

        Yeah, Larry called Scalzi a pussy. Everyone who read that knew exactly what Larry meant, so there wasn’t any real misunderstanding. All that happened was Scalzi deflected the discussion to make Larry look like the bad guy.

        Now we’ve got this pussy, Greg, in here telling us all about how wrong we are. You know what? FUCK YOU, GREG.

        I’m Goddamn sick and fucking tired of you limp dick shitballs coming up to me and people like me to tell me about how we’re all kinds of wrong for shit that wasn’t a problem 20, 30, or 40 years ago, if not long. So you know what? Kiss my ass.

        I’ll keep calling turdnuggets like you and Scalzi pussies if I so choose, and until such time as you dipshits show me it’s no longer applicable.

        Somehow, I suspect holding my breath until such time would be very unwise.

      • Yeah I never said anyone was a minsogynst just that the word pussy does in fact reflect how it came about. Please refrain from calling me names. I would not do so to you. Understanding words is important and how they came about is too. Please read more carefully next time.

      • Like I give a shit if you call me names or not.

        You come here, after that shit last night, and proceed to talk about where the word comes from, after I was called a misogynist about a half dozen times, and you really think I give a shit about your delicate feelings?

        Go fuck yourself. I’ve had enough of this “Well, this is where the word comes from” bullshit.

      • Wow. No need to swear. Maybe a nap might be in order. Clearly you have some issues that need resolving. Which is a good thing. Relax. Save your vitriol for someone who is actually calling you names.

      • How about you take your suggestion of a nap and shove it up your ass.

        I started off this fucking year, literally, with death threats against both me and my children. I’ve been called all manners of names, including a fucking misogynist, and that’s just in the last 24 hours. This is after months of actually trying to keep things cool and calm in my discussions.

        My reward has been more and more vitriol directed at me and people who share my views. So, as of last night, that fucking shit ended. I’m done with it.

      • I’m sorry, but this “calling someone a pussy is sexist” thing is absolute bullshit.

        Neither “pussy” nor “bitch” is a general term for humans of the female sex in the dominant culture within the US. There are subcultures where they are but, strangely, the SJWs never seem to take these subcultures to task for the rampant misogyny.

      • Of course not, because we need to respect their culture. The fact that those groups do more to dehumanize women with their choice of everyday language is irrelevant.

      • It’s not any-ism if their people uses it.

    • Calling someone a dick is also considered an insult. Is that anti-man? I don’t think there is much difference here…

    • If I might offer a linguistic counterpoint? Both ‘pussy’ and ‘dick’ have negative connotations. They also have non-sexual meanings. (Cat and short form of Richard… try explaining that last one to a native speaker of Russian reading A Batman comic in English.). That being established, let us examine why they are insults. Each implies the worst behavior of those of the respective gender who think with the wrong portion of their anatomy. Those behaviors tend to differ in type. Therefore someone behaving belligerently is more likely to be called a dick than a pussy, even if the individual is female. Likewise someone who is backstabbing and concern trolling is more likely to be called a pussy, even if they are male.

      Having read the exchange, if such an insult had to be used, the behavior being insulted is more in line with ‘pussy’ than ‘dick’. No one would have accused Larry of misandry if he had used ‘dick’ which means those being offended find it more insulting to be compared to the worst of women than the worst of men, which implies they, not he, are misogynistic.

    • *Sigh* As a woman I find this kind of white knighting so much more patronizing than Larry putting a gun in a woman’s hand and essentially saying “here’s your equalizer.”

      I’m physically weaker than most men. I’m a trained martial artist and have no trouble recognizing that fact. It’s not a case of “superior” vs. “inferior.” It’s just the way things are.

      I’m not interested in the word police defending us poor little women. I’m interested in what I can do in the real world to defend myself if needed.

      • Not word policing. Just stating the etymology of the word pussy and by the definition misogyny it fits. Feel free to use as it is effective. My focus is on the word.

      • Bullshit, Greg. You’re here telling all of lowly males that we’re wrong to use the word.

        STFU. No one here gives a shit what you think.

      • Once again never said anything disputing about anyone. My focus has been and always will be on the word itself which by definition is misogynistic in origin. Jeez. I don’t ascribe to defining people by a single word. Just be aware of were that word comes from.

      • How about you stop trying to tell us where the fuck the word comes from when, frankly, we could give a shit. We all know what it means now, and what it doesn’t mean.

        Seriously, you’re coming across like a fucking concern troll, and not a particularly skilled one.

      • You’ve been hurt a lot it seems. I’m so sorry. I hope you can resolve these issues.

      • Save it for someone who might actually care.

        I like where I’m at right now.

      • Hmmm, if you took that as sarcasm my apologies. I was just expressing concern for a fellow human being.

      • I didn’t take it as sarcasm.

        I’m saying I don’t need it. If you want to show concern, express it to all these people who fire off so much hate they honestly can’t see that people can disagree with them without actually hating them.

        It’s OK though. They win. Now, I do. I hope they’re happy being right going forward.

      • Well I am still going to wish you the best and hope you don’t let the comments of others affect you negatively.

      • Whatever.

        I’m serious though. They need your good wishes more than I do.

      • Ok. Live a good life!

      • Don’t let comments of others affect you negatively? That is always super easy for someone to say to a dude who routinely gets called a racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic, rape-apologist, wife beater by thousands of complete strangers. Thanks for the tip! :D

      • Like I said I am sorry for that. And I get that all the time too. Being over 6 foot, weighing 260, bald and goateed many have expressed much of the same sentiment towards me. I try not to let it affect my responses and try to contain my ire. I think of it as poor, uniformed children who just don’t know any better and them I feel sad.

      • That’s great Greg. Take the meanest things people have said to you, multiple that by a hundred, and then have them spread those things about you to thousands of complete strangers across the internet, and do it for five years, and then see what it does to your ire. Only they’re not uninformed children, they’re adults, theoretical peers within your industry, telling their tens of thousands of readers that you are the vilest things imaginable. Then you get to enjoy the good times as those strangers believe it, and line up to call you subhuman and threaten to murder your family.

        Yep. Civility. And it is super easy to demand it from somebody else.

      • Well not thousands but hundreds. I teach 5th grade. I am also 6′ 275# bald, goateed huge through the shoulders and have a demeanor that many view as “scary”. I have been called many a vile name, people banding against me to get me fired (granted no one whoever actually had a student in my class) had a parent group spread a rumor about me being a pedophile, told I was too dumb, too mean, too anything, teachers giving me the stink eye and cold shoulder because I like to hunt, and fish and don’t ways agree with their political view. So maybe not on the grand scale that you have experienced but I have felt I was attacked from all sides, but I refuse to let it define me. It’s not easy but I won’t allow petty children dictate to me how I should or should not react. I also don’t try to change their minds. Can’t be done. I just do the best I can, keep to my believes and laugh at their idiocy.

      • That sucks, but to me that sounds like a typical Thursday. :)

      • Mondays for me. Well ’cause you know I have the weekends off.

      • That sucks, but to me that sounds like a typical Thursday. :)

        “For you, the day the International Lord of Hate fisked your village-idiot was the most important day of your life. But for me? It was Thursday.”

      • @ RS: HERESY! Turn in your woman card forthwith and apply for re-eduation!

      • Like T.L. said– bullshit. Scalzi latched onto Larry’s word choice in an attempt to avoid actually having a conversation about the *real* issue– which is women defending themselves against rape. All of this word policing crap and cries of misogyny are nothing more than a feeble attempt at misdirection. Anyone with half a brain can see right through it. Sadly that leaves a lot of Scalzi fans still in the dark…

      • @ratseal– No need. According to Scalzi and his ilk I’m not a real woman anyway. I’m just some feebleminded, brainwashed soul in need of rescuing from myself. I’m sure they’ll tell me, at length, why they should make all of my decisions for me and how Larry and the rest of you are oppressing me.

    • I’ll give you 100% that the connotations of “pussy” indicate the misogynist history of our language.

      But I don’t think we can excise it from our language very well without being incredibly inconsistent. There are almost no insults that did not at some point refer to our sexist, racist, ableist, or classist assumptions about people.

      It is my opinion that to focus on that language rather than on the content of someone’s actions is a distraction from real progress. The discussion of the use of the word “pussy” as an insult belongs in linguistic essays, not debate.

      It’s a reasonable argument that Mr. Correia, if he wants to reach more progressives with his opinions, might want to try to speak their language. But it doesn’t make his opinions less valid if he does not choose to convert with progressives on their own turf.

      • No it should not be excised from the language it is what it is. At it’s root the Word is misogynistic, not those who use it.

      • At it’s root the Word is misogynistic, not those who use it.

        Then who cares? Really, who but etymologists should give a rat’s ass?

        The word “sanguine” comes from the Latin word for “blood.” At its root it means “bloodthirsty”. However, thanks to a completely wrong theory of medicine in the middle ages, “blood” came to be associated with optimism, cheer, and happiness, and so “sanguine” shifted meaning to “cheerfully optimistic.”

        Try using “sanguine” in its original meaning and watch the confusion ensue. The word means what it means now. It’s origins don’t really matter to that.

        The same with “pussy.”

      • Awesome. I love word origins and believe it is important to understand how words were created, used and evolved.

      • important to understand how words were created, used and evolved.

        Why? Why should that matter in people’s use of a word?

        If someone describes a person as “sanquine” are you going to come out and say “you know, that word, in it’s origin is quite violent, meaning ‘bloodthirsty’”?

        Does that add anything to the conversation? If I were deciphering an old document, it might matter–to know what the word meant then (c.f. “well-regulated” and “militia”), but in conversation happening today about contemporary topics?

      • Well I think it’s important. It’s like history knowing how and why things are is way cool.

      • I think it’s important.

        Bully for you. Why should that matter to anyone else?

        Next time you encounter someone using the word “sanguine”, send me the link of your response. I’d love to see the reaction when you tell them how violent the word is in its origins.

      • Well first my mom cares. And second I will send it to you! Won’t that be cool to read? I’ll get the other side all riled up! Which will be fun.

      • I’ll get the other side all riled up! Which will be fun.

        Well, if that’s your goal, then you succeeded. There is, however, a term for that but most folk aren’t so willing to admit it.

    • Greg Wirtala says “And I replied. And won. HA!”

      The real loser here is grammar.

      Declaring yourself the victor and leaving the argument now? ROTFL Straight from the Internet Argument Checklist.

      • No didn’t leave. Been responding to others. As for my grammar? Typing on phone. Small keyboard; big thumbs.

      • Yeah. And then it ended up a classic 1-2-5-7.

    • Just so you know, Greg, balanced against the unreasoned flaming of you downstairs — you hit the nail on the head. A man can use a gendered slur without being inherently sexist/misogynist because of the deeply ingrained cultural conditioning that involves the insulting of men by comparing them to women. It’s so deeply ingrained, especially in US culture, that many many men simply fail to see it — and when you call them on it, they immediately get defensive and hostile. This immediately makes them look even more anti-women than they do already.

      Seriously — how hard it is to say Oh. I didn’t realise that it might be taken that way. I didn’t realise that women hearing men insulted by being compared to a woman might feel slighted, disrespected or relegated to 2nd class citizen status. It wasn’t my intent. I’ll try to do better. How hard is that for an intelligent, rational man?

      But clearly, for some men, some of whom congregate here, the ability to stop and think and consider someone else’s experience is beyond them. Very sad. And it’s the kind of angry, bitter refusal to think that maybe someone else — gasp, a woman! – has a legitimate point or experience that fuels the equally self-defeating rage and hate demonstrated by the misandrists of the feminist movement.

      • Wow. Thanks. What I thought was a simple answer went crazy. Oh well. Good night all. Have a fun; read a lot.

  12. This freakout over the word “pussy” just highlights, again, the problem with the 1984-ish restructuring of the english language to support their political goals that the left has been trying to slip under our radar.

    Yes, it’s unfortunate that a part of the female anatomy has been coopted as a term for weakness, and it would probably be a little bit better (and more descriptive) if we were using a term like “spineless cowards,” or something along those lines, instead.

    But even if that term DID reflect peoples’ opinions of women deep-down, (and I’d argue that it doesn’t; everybody knows, instinctually, that when they say “pussy” they’re not talking about a literal vagina, and I don’t think many people who use the term would agree for a second that all women are weak) to equate that with ACTUAL hatred of women, and to try to argue that removal of the word “pussy” from the lexicon will somehow stop wife-beaters, abusers, and people who discriminate against women in other ways? To try to play on peoples’ existing, and totally reasonable, hatred of the one thing in order to try to control their opinion the other? That’s just deceptive and harmful. To insinuate that those two very different things are, in fact, the same thing, accomplishes nothing but to water down the actual phenomenon, and to trivialize actual rape, racism, and misogyny.

    Yet, they absolutely refuse to engage you if you try to tell them that terms like “rape culture” are flawed and unhelpful. They realize that if you remove the big scary word “rape,” from their term, people will realize, “oh, wait, that’s not such a bad thing after all,” and stop paying attention to them and their silly little theory. Who knows, they might even start focusing on ACTUAL problems, like, I dunno, maybe rape!

    • Apparently, “rapist” is the new RAAACCCIIISSSTTT.

      The word’s been reduced to just another epithet for liberals to call people they disagree with…and give them an excuse to deny their opponents so much as the right to disagree with them. And meanwhile, the same morons who are having a pearl-clutching fit over Larry calling his opponents “pussies’ – and rightfully so – are basically the same ones running around dressed as giant vaginas.

      http://twitchy.com/2014/06/18/thats-a-really-grumpy-looking-uterus-its-the-uterus-of-justice/

      Besides, this whole thing sort of misses the point, which is that the argument that men need to be “educated not to rape” is ridiculously insulting on the face of it.

      Perhaps John Scalzi and Greg Wirtala need such training, but most of us have the self-control and decency not to do something like that.

      And from the sound of this whole argument: Before we train liberal men not to rape, perhaps we should first make sure they – and the radical feminists who keep their balls in their purses – actually understand what rape actually *is.*

      • Hell, if you go by the response to http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/08/13/breaking-it-down , people actually get offended when you tell everyone not to rape.

      • Dude over reach. I just said the word pussy on its origins is misogynistic. It certainly isn’t complimentary to women. If you want to disparage awesome but please do so with facts. I never defended Mr Scalzi, just commented on the word. In fact I am offended to be lumped in such company. You made assumptions and you know what they say about assuming? You’re an ass.

      • Nah, you showed up to concern troll and got your ass handed to you.

    • Nope, “Spineless Coward” is offensive to the Differently-Enabled who have no spines.

  13. Nice of Scalzi to insult all of Larry’s fans like that. What a jerk. Scalzi’s never going to see a dime of my money, that’s for sure.

    • Makes sense though. It’s the same tactic cowards worldwide use: if you can’t beat someone in a straight up fight, attack their allies. Never mind the fact that Larry has fans of every gender, race, sexual orientation, and political opinion, they just lump us all together and slap a biohazard sticker on us (which is kinda cool when you think about it).

      • Never mind the fact that Larry has fans of every gender, race, sexual orientation, and political opinion, they just lump us all together and slap a biohazard sticker on us (which is kinda cool when you think about it).

        Yeah, but the dayglo stuff is just lame.

    • Indeed. That tweet is a perfect example of why I no longer purchase his books. It’s not that he has strong opinions that are the opposite of mine – everyone has strong opinions about something and perfect agreement is an impossibility.

      No, Scalzi has lost me as a reader because he seems to find joy in displaying his contempt for those who disagree with him. It’s like a twisted form of performance art with the goal of proving himself the most virtuous person in the room.

      I don’t mind giving money to good artists who simply disagree with me, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to hand over money to someone who repeatedly goes out of his way to spit in my face.

      • That’s exactly my take on things. I read plenty of writers who likely disagree with my politics (and vice versa), but I’m not going to give one thin dime to anybody who goes out of his or her way to gratuitously insult me.

        I’ve never bought a single book of Scalzi’s, and I never will. And the asshole quotient was one reason I stopped reading Stephen King. (Still like some of SK’s early stuff, but – save perhaps for “Needful Things” and “Dreamcatcher,” you can keep the rest of his post-”Christine” catalog.)

  14. Let me leave this here where QUILTBAGs can see what SFWA members do which they DON’T call out.

    “Beth Bernobich @beth_bernobich · 11h @eilatan I want LC (Larry Correia) and his fucking minions to die in a fire.”

    • Dear Beth,

      Sorry there, Smokey-bear, but it’s highly unlikely the vile fantasy of death and agony that you are wishing on your fellow humans will come true.

      Most of us have smoke detectors & fire extinguishers, because we (Larry’s minions/fans in general) are generally the sort of folks who look at the actual hazards in the real world, and prepare accordingly.
      Nor are we ‘arson apologists’ for taking such rational precautions.

      And BTW, your “fine example” of how not to be a decent human being is duly noted.

      XOXOXO

      Piotr

    • I’m actually glad these people put their vile opinions out there so blatantly. It makes it so much easier to decide which books to never, ever buy.

      • Dammit!!! try again

        Dear Fail,

        Why do stupid people, leave amazingly stupid comments in public places when everybody knows that you are actively hunting down stupid comments by stupid people and then use them as ammunition to show everyone how they are being stupid people in the first place?

        keep up the good work,

        -Chris

  15. Twitchy missed the most cogent part of the argument:

  16. I already have Nemesis: Hardcover on order, but I just ordered the Ebook as well, just to give you a little more money I’m never giving John Scalzi.

  17. Well, “Twitter fight” is perhaps overstating things, if only because it implies equality. And given that Scalzi was basically slap-fighting while Larry was dual-wielding the rhetorical equivalent of tetsubos…

  18. Everyone has some idiots that post on their sites, so I am not sure how LC is responsible for this. It seemed like Scalzi’s biggest complaint was about how the blog entry was titled? Seriously?

    Scalzi had seemed to be fairly neutral in the past in regards to gun ownership. His latest post seems to show how condescending he is towards gun owners. While some people’s gun pictures are creepy, he seems to be projecting his own insecurities.

  19. Everybody who uses the word “pussy” deserves to die by being put in a giant microwave oven in a tin foil tuxedo while lava is poured over them because “misogyny.”

    • No that is just plain dumb. Just because you use the word does not mean you hate women. Jeez. Forest meet the trees. It’s part of our vernacular and it isn’t going to go away. I think one should be just know the etymology of the word, and as Mr Scalzi alluded to it’s nuances.

      • Tell you what. You go tell Scalzi that it isn’t misogynist, and I’ll revise my opinion of your presence here from troll to “someone who doesn’t really understand what we’ve been catching from those guys for months now).

        Bonus points if you can get him to agree that it’s not.

      • Yeah not what I was saying. Once again all I am saying the origins of the word are misogynistic, not those who use the word.

      • Please see the response I just recently made to your post.

        However, I will note that the origins of the word are irrelevant. The common use today isn’t.

      • Then why must I be cursed to die by fire? That is an awful curse to bear. Is it SFWA approved?

      • I say minimize this curse and don’t play with matches.

      • I say minimize this curse and don’t play with matches.

        There you go, blaming the victim. Why don’t you teach fires not to burn people? Don’t support burn-culture.

      • I am not blaming the victim I am just saying if I was cursed to die by fire, I’d take precautions. Maybe walk around in one of those fancy silver suits.

      • I am not blaming the victim I am just saying

        Whoosh!!!!

        You do realize that this whole brouhaha started because Miss Nevada during the Miss USA Pageant, as part of an answer about what to do about rape suggested that women should learn to defend themselves. The shitstorm from the left was that the suggestion meant “rape culture” wins and that it was “blaming the victim.”

        It was Larry’s post on that which was the inspiration for Hines and Scalzi calling people here misogynists.

        And that is why we are here in this thread.

      • Well not everyone. I commented on whether the word pussy was misogynistic. I didn’t comment on the anything else. I didn’t know there was rules or guidelines posted on commenting. Was it at the top? However, more than happy to put my two cents in… Most ridiculous thing I ever heard! People are dumb. Commenting on stuff that they don’t understand and taking it all too seriously. I am often flummox by what gets everyone so riled up. Too many are focused on the trees and can never see the forest. Of course Mr Coreia isn’t pro-rape or a misogynist. To allude such is just crazy. People on both sides need take a step back and think about what is being written or said. The vitriol from both sides is ridiculous. I for one would love to have a discussion not a crazy discourse. Talking about issues without attacking the other viewpoint is a lost art.

      • Well not everyone.

        Yes everyone because if it weren’t for that, there would be no thread here.

      • It may not have been your reason, but there would have been no “here” (i.e. this post and the comments thereto) if it weren’t for that.

        Context. It matters.

      • Context? Like the word pussy?

      • Like the word pussy?

        Will you please make up your mind? If you want to call the origin of the word “context” and, therefore, meaningful in the current use (and thus using it is misogyny) then own it. If you want to say that the origin was just “interesting” and doesn’t mean that people using it are misogynist, then it is not relevant context.

        So please pick one.

      • Well since context is defined as the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed. Then it is both. Knowing where the word comes from and it iteration through time is interesting and thus relevant, so one can understand and then assess the impact such a word has.

      • Ah, so you are are trying to claim that using the word is a sign of misogyny. You’re just weasel wording it.

      • Sigh. Here: The word pussy is misogynistic in its origins. That’s it. That is what I wrote. That’s all. Using the word doesn’t make you a woman hater, heck who even thinks that? But from a pure etymological view it’s where it got its start. Jeez.

      • The word pussy is misogynistic in its origins. That’s it.

        It’s not “that’s it” if you claim it’s relevant to it’s current usage any more than the origin of “sanguine” has any relevance to someones use of the term today.

        You keep trying to have it both ways.

      • Dude. Circles. It’s origins are those associative with weakness being derived for Scandanavian for “pocket” or “purse” that was used in regards to a woman’s genitalia. You don’t call someone a pussy without calling out them being weak or cowardly and a lot of those old Vikings thought that way of women. So basically calling them a girl. Which always pisses guys off.

      • Dude. Circles.

        Yep, you do keep going in circles. You claim that you’re just discussing the origin of the word, that’s all, and that current usage is different, but then when it’s pointed out that in saying that you render your posts on that subject irrelevant to current usage you post something like this functionally claiming that it is misogynist.

        Please. make. up. your. mind.

        At this point, you’re getting boring.

        and a lot of those old Vikings thought that way of women

        You haven’t read many of the viking sagas, have you? Or The Germania of Tacitus (the Germanic tribes of that period were very closely related to the Norse).

        BTW, I’m Asatru (well, “Asatru leaning agnostic”) so if you want to argue this, be sure to bring your “A” game because I am familiar with the Lore.

      • Dude read ‘em. Love ‘em. But come on! What happens when you get a bunch of macho guys together? Good old fashion ridicule. Been a part of that from football to martial arts. Dudes always make reference to being a girl and never in glowing terms. I don’t know if you are purposefully being obtuse or I am not conveying myself clearly but once again the word itself is not exactly flattering women.

      • Dude read ‘em. Love ‘em.

        But apparently not understood them. Consider, for instance, the roll of women in Germanic society as described by Tacitus. (You have read his “Germania” right?) Or perhaps you might consider the number of Sagas that were basically about matriarchs of various clans leading their people over the course of several generations.

        Or consider the Volsung Saga (by that title it should be clear that I prefer the Icelandic version to the Germanic). While Brynhilde is not historical* (at least not verifiably so) Shieldmaidens–women who actually took up arms and fought–were. There are archaeological digs showing women buried with armor and weapons, and not just ceremonial weapons either, real, serviceable killing tools.

        But come on! What happens when you get a bunch of macho guys together?

        That question speaks volumes about you. In my experience, when macho men–real macho men, not just posers–the discussion regarding women is generally how awesome they are.

        But, hey, don’t let that get in the way of your stereotyping.

        *At least not verifiably historical. Aslaug, however, the daughter of Sigurd and Brynhild and the one person in the saga to avoid Andvari’s Curse, per the Volsung Saga, is possibly historical. She is the wife of an Ragnar Lodbruk who is possibly actually historical. A slim reed, perhaps, but slimmer ones have produced remarkable results.

      • Seriously your defending the word pussy? Please read carefully and understand; the word pussy is derogatory. It is in no way a compliment. It is bad. It emphasizes the “weakness” of a woman. Traits men hate. Misogyny means hatred of women. Etc. etc. etc. You are trying to pull in shades of gray that don’t exist, over thinking, over analyzing. Words like dick, pussy, fag, spik etc. were created to spark hurt and pain. I wasn’t saying anything else. Ridiculous. But hey if want to defend the word cool.

      • Switching ground because you got called on the “viking” angle?

        Please read carefully and understand; the word pussy is derogatory. It is in no way a compliment.

        Nobody ever said it was. Straw man.

        It emphasizes the “weakness” of a woman.

        No, actually, it doesn’t. Because, and read this carefully now, it. is. not. a. general. term. for. women. It never has been in the primary cultures in the US. Ever.

        In fact, the subcultures that do use it as a general term for women never seem to get called on it by the SJW crowd.

        “Pussy” is not a term for women in general. At most it is a term for a certain subset of women who behave in ways that society at large considers unacceptable–the same way “bastard” or “gigolo” refers to that subset of men who behave in ways (different for each of the two terms, so stipulated) that society at large generally considers unacceptable.

        Have you ever gone anywhere and lectured people on the misandry of the term “dick”? Or on the real blaming the victim involved in the origin of “bastard” as a derogatory term? Links please.

        If you haven’t you are doing no more than concern trolling.

        But we knew that.

      • Dude are you ok? This is hilarious. I don’t even know what your talking about. Concern trolling? Don’t know what that is. I just made a comment about a word. Over thinking. So if I get what your saying pussy is ok? So if I call someone a pussy they won’t think I am calling them a weak girl? Come on this is ridiculous. Like many of those you argue your focus noton the topic but rather semantics. Crazy. You’re silly.

      • I don’t even know what your talking about.

        Difficulty understanding simple declarative English sentences?

        Concern trolling? Don’t know what that is.

        http://lmgtfy.com/?q=concern+troll

        So if I get what your saying pussy is ok?

        Yep. Either complete failure to understand simple declarative English sentences or deliberate straw man.

        You said “the word pussy is derogatory.” I replied “nobody said otherwise” Yes, it is a derogatory term. It’s an insult. Nobody has ever claimed otherwise.

        It’s your specific claims about the word, its origin, and it’s usage, that are at question. Like, for instance, when you made up (or repeated something somebody else made up) that BS about vikings and you got called on it.

        You keep making arguments based on “pussy” being a term for women when it’s not and never has been, not in mainstream US culture.

      • That’s awesome be derisive. If someone doesn’t know something the correct response is to ridicule them. You must be awesome at a party. And gosh your right pussy never applies to women. Oh wait no just looked it up it does. I’ll re post pus·sy
        ˈpo͝osē/
        noun
        noun: pussy; plural noun: pussies; noun: pussycat
        1.informal a cat.
        2.vulgar slang a woman’s genitals.
        offensive women in general, considered sexually.
        NORTH AMERICANinformal
        a weak, cowardly, or effeminate man.

        Unless offensive women in general means something different, you know being deficit in English and all.

        As for your claims about Viking history I never ran away, never felt “called” out in anyway. Like I said I find the whole history to be fascinating as gosh it’s part of family history and all. While I am not an expert nor ever claim to be I have thoroughly enjoyed reading about Scandidavian culture. Of course you felt it necessary to focus on something completely different than what I said, you know about dudes hanging and turned into a fascinating history lesson. Thanks.

      • 2.vulgar slang a woman’s genitals.
        offensive women in general, considered sexually.

        Already answered long before you posted this the first time. I said in. so. many. words. that in certain subcultures it is used as a term for women. Odin’s one eye, you’re thick.

        Inner city high schools. Six years in the military. Never once heard it used as a general term for women. About a specific woman about whom one was making certain assumptions, yes, but about women in general, no. Except from those specific subcultures.

        If it’s started to migrate into “mainstream” verbiage it’s precisely because it’s coming from those subcultures–which subcultures never seem to get called out by the SJW crowd for.

        The viking thing? You may find it interesting but you don’t appear to know much about it. As soon as somebody brings up specific points showing that they actually do have a good bit of knowledge of it, you quickly change the subject.

        Consider:

        http://sciencenordic.com/don%E2%80%99t-underestimate-viking-women

        “To assume that Viking men were ranked above women is to impose modern values on the past, which would be misleading,” cautions Marianne Moen. She has been studying how women’s status and power is expressed through Viking burial findings. Her master’s thesis The Gendered Landscape argues that viking gender roles may have been more complex than we assume.” (More at the link)

        Actual science there.

        If you wanted to pick a society to be the origin of an English term to be based on the denigration of women, you should have picked another, any other, European society over Viking.

      • The Webster’s Third International Dictionary points out similarities between pussy in the sense of “vulva” and Low German or Scandinavian words meaning “pocket” or “purse”, including Old Norse pūss and Old English pusa.

      • The Webster’s Third International Dictionary points out similarities between pussy in the sense of “vulva” and Low German or Scandinavian words meaning “pocket” or “purse”, including Old Norse pūss and Old English pusa.

        Gasp! A number of languages that are closely linguistically related have similarities in vocabulary. Stop the presses!

        That’s a dish of lame, with a side order of wimpy, covered with weaksauce.

      • Yes continue disregarding anything from Webster’s Dictionary. And anything else you disagree with because using your logic it is wrong. You are not going to get what I saying. Which is fine. I for one would feel bad about defending the word pussy but hey what ever. Have a good one. I am off to lift.

      • Yes continue disregarding anything from Webster’s Dictionary.

        Interesting that you bring that up in response to pointing out that Norse, German, and English are all “Germanic” languages, closely related and, therefore, there’s no real significance beyond that for them having similar sounding words. (Some, for example, consider Norwegian the easiest language for English speakers to learn: http://www.pagef30.com/2008/08/why-norwegian-is-easiest-language-for.html

        But, hey, let us all bow down before the Mighty Websters.

        You are not going to get what I saying.

        You’re confusing “not getting it” with disagreeing. I “get it” fine. I just disagree.

        I for one would feel bad about defending the word pussy but hey what ever.

        And more straw man and concern trolling.

        Nobody said “pussy” wasn’t applied as an insult. It’s your specific claims about usage that are at question.

        That you keep misrepresenting–and after repeated corrections it has to be deliberate–what I have said on the matter says volumes about you.

      • Pretty consistent in what I have wrote. I don’t know what else to say. You seem to have a need to create controversy where done exist, but if I understand what you are saying Vikings would never have been disparaging to women, pussy has never been used to refer to women, and in no way is misongynistic. You call people names because it gives you sense of superiority. You take simple comments and turn them into a discourse on a dead culture, while still missing the picture that the word pussy is disparaging and hurtful to women. Cool. By the way that’s why pussy is so powerful and works oh so well. And now I am good to go. This was fun. Just to let you know I would never say anything mean to you. Never find discussions to be personal. You fat, myopic, condescending, lonely little man. HA! Good night Cleveland! Tip your waiters and try the veal!

      • but if I understand what you are saying Vikings would never have been disparaging to women, pussy has never been used to refer to women.

        Since I never said any of those things, and you have been corrected on that repeatedly, you are either lying or are remarkably obtuse.

      • Um you said, “You keep making arguments based on “pussy” being a term for women when it’s not and never has been, not in mainstream US culture” “To assume that Viking men were ranked above women is to impose modern values on the past, which would be misleading,” cautions Marianne Moen. She has been studying how women’s status and power is expressed through Viking burial findings. Her master’s thesis The Gendered Landscape argues that viking gender roles may have been more complex than we assume.” “No, actually, it doesn’t. Because, and read this carefully now, it. is. not. a. general. term. for. women. It never has been in the primary cultures in the US. Ever.” So… You should read what you write

      • For someone who’s “off” you sure post a lot.

        Um you said, “You keep making arguments based on “pussy” being a term for women when it’s not and never has been, not in mainstream US culture”</blockquote"

        Note that phrase "not in mainstream US culture." It is used in certain subcutlures. I’ve said so. Nothing there is contrary to the Webster’s definition you posted. Just because some people use a word a certain way, and therefore it makes it into a dictionary, doesn’t make it something used by mainstream US culture.

        “To assume that Viking men were ranked above women is to impose modern values on the past, which would be misleading,”

        Did you notice the quote marks? That was from the article to which I linked. It was an actual archaeologist making that statement. You cited a the author of a lay book. I responded with someone doing actual peer-reviewed research.

        People can have different “domains” and “responsibilities” without one being “above” the other. I do computer programming and atomic force microscope operation at my office. Another guy does sales and marketing. Which one of us is above the other? Without the sales guy, I would soon not have a paycheck. Without me, he wouldn’t have anything to sell.

        But in your world, I guess anything other than “identical” must imply one is “superior” to the other.

        “No, actually, it doesn’t. Because, and read this carefully now, it. is. not. a. general. term. for. women. It never has been in the primary cultures in the US. Ever.”

        And again you miss that “in the primary cultures in the US”. Your Websters cite does not refute that.

        I also said that it could be used to refer to a specific woman as an assessment of that particular individual’s, character, let us say. That usage too is consistent with the Webster’s definition.

        Yes, it’s derogatory. Just as “he’s a dick” is derogatory. (And I’m still waiting for you to point out to where you’ve gone to people using “dick” as in insult and pointed out the origins of that word in misandry or where you’ve gone to people using the word “bastard” and pointed out that that word has its origins in the ultimate in victim blaming. You have done that, right? You’re not just attacking one side while giving the other side a pass, right?)

        Maybe you should actually read for content

        Now, as I _also_ said, it’s possible that the phraseology is moving from those particular subcultures into more general usage, but if you have a complaint with that, I would suggest you take it up with the folk who _originated_ it.

      • I am not attacking anyone. I just said the word pussy in it’s origins shows a dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women: Oxford definition of misogyny. That’s it. All I have been saying. I don’t understand how else to state it.

      • Still here? Have a funny definition of “off”, I guess.

        I just said the word pussy in it’s origins shows a dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women: Oxford definition of misogyny.

        In so doing you assume far more than is actually there, as has been pointed out repeatedly.

        And you can’t seem to make up your mind whether it’s just “the origin” or if it’s relevant to the current meaning.

        Once again, to illustrate. The word “sanguine.”

        Somebody says “I’m feeling a bit sanguine today.” Do you go to them and tell them how that word has its origins in violence (originally meaning “bloodthirsty”) and that maybe they should consider that before using such a loaded term? If you do, links please.

        And then you go off into never never land trying to justify making that much stew from that little oyster by going off on Vikings (one of, if not the, least “male dominated” society of Medieval and Dark Ages Europe), you cite similarities of the sound of words (hardly surprising in such closely aligned languages–although you could also have gone for the latinate pudenda which is only three rather small linguistic steps away–consonant shift, shortening, and diminutive–from”pussy”).

        You build a big series of arguments out of . . . nothing . . . in order to claim that “pussy used as an insult is derogatory” to which the proper response is “no shit,nobody ever said otherwise and that’s kind of the point of insults.”

        To say that using the term is demeaning to women (misogyny) is to say that women as people are defined by their vaginas.

        And that is sexist. Or to use the current buzzword, misogyny.

      • I never have taken a position on current meaning. You keep trying to create an issue that isn’t there. All my posts have been about origin. And if you want to believe the Vikings weren’t male dominated go for it. You’re kind of silly. Once again don’t care how it is used. Anyone is free to use it anyway he or she wants. I would never condemn it’s use. I myself have used. I’d probably call you a pussy, all have have said over and over the word itself fits the definition of misogyny and I don’t think if you use it you hate women. Good God man.

      • Oh and during breaks between sets I am postin’.

      • In then same arugument dick is a word based on misandry. Both words take aspects from genders deemed unsavory, but once again AM NOT saying if you use either word your intent is to be hurtful to the respective gender, rather you use it as way to insult. Both these words were created not through rejoicing in gender traits but in condemning them. Words evolve and change but they have all have a starting place which is cool. This is really not as big an issue has you are making it and I am not really sure what your arguing about. Do you think pussy doesn’t show diislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women? That calling a guy a pussy does not mean you think he is weak and girly? If so what is your interpretation?

      • Hmm. Looks like I need the actual HTML (if the tags work here)

      • And no not changing tactics. Same one. Dudes in any setting, disparage one another. Biggest insult be called a girl. Blah blah blah. HA! All worked up about. If you’d like to read how Viking women lived Jenny Jochen is an excellent source she has a couple of books out. One is I believe Women in Old Norse Society, I think. I can check on a link for you if you’d like.

      • If you’d like to read how Viking women lived Jenny Jochen is an excellent source she has a couple of books out.

        Ah yes, you’d pick the one that agrees with you (or appears to any way. On her.

        The problem is the sagas, eddas, historical works like Germania by Tacitus and History of the Danes by Grammaticus paint a somewhat different picture.

        That’s why referenced the sagas themselves and actual archaeology and not from somebodies “interpretation” thereof.

        2.vulgar slang a woman’s genitals.
        offensive women in general, considered sexually.

        Why, yes, certain subcultures use it that way. I said so, in so many words. I also pointed out that the SJW crowd never says “boo” to those subcultures over the use of the word.

        You’re really reaching.

      • Seriously your using Saxo Grammaticus
        as a source? The poet? The one you created a stylized version of the shield maiden? Saxo had a decided fascination for the Norse warrior woman, and went out of his way to collect what stories and folklore he could find about these ladies. Unfortunately, Saxo had also read quite a bit of Classical literature, and freely adulterated the Norse stories he was told with Greek tales of the Amazons. His work still provides fascinating reading. Do be sure to also read Birgit Strand’s analysis of how Saxo treats his female characters. Also from Hurtwic The Role of Women in Viking Society

        Although our sources of information are limited, it’s clear that the roles of men and women in Norse society were quite distinct. Norse society was male dominated. Each gender had a set of expected behaviors, and that line could not be crossed with impunity. I think it just as unlikely that a man would weave cloth as that a woman would participate in a Viking raid. Women did not participate in trading or raiding parties (although they clearly participated in journeys of exploration and settlement to places such as Iceland and Vínland). Women’s responsibilities were clearly defined to be domestic. Members of either sex who crossed the gender line were, at very least, ostracized by society. Some cross-gender behaviors were strictly prohibited by law. The medieval Icelandic lawbook Grágás (K 254) prohibits women from wearing men’s clothes, from cutting their hair short, or from carrying weapons. Women were valued and cares for but rarely consider a warrior. Shield maidens were a rarity. But once again not my point. Guys will always call each other names and the best way to get some guys ire up call him a pussy. So relax sit back read Nemesis and have a great night.

      • You don’t like Saxo as a source (not “the” source by any means, but one of many), fine. He needs to be read with a great deal of care. But you don’t get to just pick the one you don’t like and ignore the rest.

        Snorri also made a great deal of effort to “Christianize” the Norse Myths. The whole point of “The Beguiling of Gilfi” is that Gilfi was being “tricked” in that these stories he was being told were about real Gods and Goddesses. Then there’s that interminable prologue (I made it through once–skipped it on re-reads) where Snorri tries to establish the Norse myths, particularly the Ragnarok tale, as being corrupted retellings of the, as he apparently thought, historical fall of Troy. (The irony of trying to “explain” one set of pagan myths as retellings of another apparently escaped him.)

        Then there’s the apparent “drift” in the portrayal of Helheim. There are indications that it was not a “bad” place to go after death (the gold thatched Gjallerbru, as an example). Also, the simplistic “death in combat takes you to Valhol (folk seem to forget that Freyja gets half the warriors) while those who don’t go to Helheim (Hel’s realm in Niffleheim), the actual tales don’t paint such a simplistic picture. Sigurd, after all, while stabbed in his sleep, woke up and, before dying, chopped his attacker in half. Died fighting. In combat. Yet he and Brynhild are portrayed as going to Helheim.

        So, again, not so simple.

        Norse society was male dominated.

        See the link to actual archaeology on the subject.

        Not so simple as you claim.

        The medieval Icelandic lawbook Grágás (K 254) prohibits women from wearing men’s clothes, from cutting their hair short, or from carrying weapons.

        Bridging the very end of the Viking age and over the Christianization of Iceland. Is it coincidence that these exact “crimes” are what got Joan of Arc burned at the stake?

        However, I’ll grant you one thing. To a certain extent all pre-industrial societies are male dominated. (Yes, I know, some folk claim a great Matriarchy in the past–it’s bullshit.) Viking society was less so than most.

        Basically, you come here and present a rather simplistic view of things, whether it’s the “misandry” of a particular word or the roll of women in viking society, which simply won’t sell here.

        But on the subject of vikings:

        Viking Kitties Rule!

      • Um, dude what? Simply said Vikings male dominated and that using the word “pussy” as a slur to characterize men as “cowardly” and “weak” is still misogynistic because it relies on degrading a woman’s body. It reinforces the sexist logic that being called a woman or, in this case, a body part of a woman, is always negative, demeaning, and shameful. It reminds us that in order for men to feel truly insulted, they must be compared to women because women, as heteropatriarchy teaches us, are weaker and inferior to men. Mountain meet molehill.

      • Simply said Vikings male dominated

        Yeah “simple.” Problem is that, as shown in the link showing actual archaeology by actual archaeologists doing actual research on viking society, it wasn’t so simple.

        But nice to know you’re finally owning the claim that using the term is, in your view “misogynist” when you tried to avoid that in classic concern troll style.

      • Still with the name calling. And still don’t know what it means. So it has little impact. Unlike pussy. HA!

      • And still don’t know what it means.

        At this point that’s on you.

      • And pus·sy
        ˈpo͝osē/
        noun
        noun: pussy; plural noun: pussies; noun: pussycat
        1.informal a cat.
        2.vulgar slang a woman’s genitals.
        offensive women in general, considered sexually.
        NORTH AMERICAN informal
        a weak, cowardly, or effeminate man.

        So yeah it has been/is used to describe women. Sorry.

      • Greg, you can attempt to play the moral equivalence card, but let’s take a look at the facts. You want a debate? My comments are not edited, massaged, or deleted, and I don’t close them when people I disagree with talk. They don’t. Hines didn’t last more than a few hours of discourse.

        Is there vitriol? Of course. My thin veneer of civility has long since been eroded away because I’ve been accused of every vile, awful thing a human can be, without evidence, every time, for years. Because if you stick up, you will be hammered down. When I started in this business, I was far nicer, and my reward for it was being slandered by hundreds of people who know nothing about me.

        Indeed, these alluding these things is crazy, but it happens continually, and yet it seems the moderate voices of reason are always telling my side to play nice, while the other side sends death threats to my children.

        Yesterday somebody asked me how I can always get into fights like this, because they’d participated for a little while and they were exhausted by it. My response was that I actually didn’t do it all the time, I only did it when I felt like it, HOWEVER the secret was that at any given moment, somewhere on the internet, someone was attacking me for something, and all I needed to do was look. :)

        Now, that’s just me and my own surly disposition, but if you want to know why my fans are quick to anger, it is because they’ve been watching this vicariously through me and other authors like me for years now. And when it isn’t enough to attack me, they inevitably attack the character of my fans.

        Now, in real life my average book signing looks like the rainbow fucking coalition compared to my detractors. The diversity panel at the Nambulas looked like a Klan rally compared to my fan base. Yet, every day, my people are told that they are racist, homophobic bigots.

        When you’ve reached that point, there is no discussing viewpoints, because that requires a good faith effort, and when one side opens with “Hey racist teabagger, respect my opinion!” So when I argue, I have no delusions of swaying them. This is a spectator sport. Give ammo to my side and convince the undecided by mocking the willfully ignorant. Nothing more, nothing less.

      • This is a spectator sport. Give ammo to my side and convince the undecided by mocking the willfully ignorant. Nothing more, nothing less.

        One more thing, I think, that’s as important, if not more so, than the things you’ve listed: let those on your side, who can often feel awfully isolated given the stranglehold the “other side” has no the “mainstream media”, know that they are not alone.

      • Which on your side is awesome. I love reading your responses. On the other side it’s just sad. I just think if you use a word own the fact where the word comes from. Pussy reflects an attitude embraced by previous generations that equated being weak to being a woman. That’s all I was saying. Doesn’t mean you are one. Have I used that word? Yep and other bad words that if I wrote done folks would focus on those and not what I am writing. We have a lot of word that at one time or other that origins are those that disparage. I like words. I like to understand why we use them and there iteration through generations. Could you use a word that would have conveyed your ire? Probably not. Because pussy is an impactful word because of its origins. That’s all. Keep writing. Keep defending yourself. Though I don’t necessarily agree with some of your views, you are an excellent writer that creates amazing worlds.

      • Pussy reflects an attitude embraced by previous generations that equated being weak to being a woman.

        Not even that. After all, in the dominant culture “pussy” has never been a general term for “woman” just like “dick” has never been a general term for men.

        “Pussy” does not mean “like a woman” any more than “dick” means “like a man.”

        Note that there are subcultures where “pussy” and “bitch” are used as general terms for women. The funny thing, though, is that folk like Scalzi never call them out on their misogyny. Would you care to fill that lack? If you do, links please, I’d love to see the result.

        People like Scalzi call out people like Larry (or me, although I’m not really important enough to show up much on their radar) because they know we won’t respond with anything more than words. When it comes to taking a real stand, where there are real risks of doing so, the silence is deafening.

        “Pussy” has long meant “weak-willed coward” as “dick” means “arrogant, rude, obnoxious person.” No more than that.

        And if the shoe fits, they should lace that bad boy up and wear it. (Oh, did I just engage in misandry there by my choice of idiom?)

      • Fail has made an SFWA voodoo doll. Either SFWA rescinds Bernobich’s fiery death-curse through official channels, or Fail starts in with the pins.

      • “or Fail starts in with the pins.”

        Won’t do any good. SF’s hard left is already comprised entirely of nothing but hundreds of tiny, malevolent pricks.

      • Greg, you are a fool. I do not say an idiot, because you seem to have a certain level of intellectual capacity that you are declining to use. You have missed one incredible significant point: of COURSE ‘pussy’ is insulting, so are ‘dick’ and ‘bastard’ and various other pejoratives. The invective is supposed to be insulting or it’s not either effective or invective. You flail about and half pretend you might be claiming to object to the use of the profane, invective, and pejorative (note, I do not say the expletive), yet you have yet to make that case. You have argued etymology not usage and the inappropriateness of all words of a given type.

        What you are neglecting to follow and either defend or repudiate is the fundamental point of the pejorative. ‘Pussy’ is a very mild way of saying ‘you embody all that is the worst of the female of the species’ there are far worse terms (culturally speaking). Just as ‘dick’ is a very mild way of saying ‘you embody all that is the worst of the male of the species.’

        Neither of these terms indicates that all women are that way, nor that all men are that way, merely that the behaviors they describe and which are most prevalent in either women or men are worthy of mockery and derision. It is a blunt (and some, including myself, would argue crude) way of saying ‘your behavior is loathsome in these specific ways and I am calling you on it.’ Used properly such words can be very effective. Used improperly they have a variety of other effects, but you haven’t bothered to go into that either.

        Words you need to look up and familiarize yourself with:
        profanity
        invective
        pejorative

        You might also want to do some research into the origins of the term ‘to curse’.

      • I never said I never used or said anything about it’s profanity other than the paste I did from the dictionary. All I have said over and over and over, pussy is not a word that exhales women. You even admit it is used as a prejorative. It doesn’t complement women. You are putting to much analysis into this and are projecting what you think I am saying. Misogyny=Hatred of Women
        Pussy= weak effeminate (not meant as compliment) meant to hurt
        That’s it. I have no problem with the word. Used it myself. However I do realize it is word that contains with in a measure to hurt denigrate. Doesn’t mean if you use it you hate women, heck that probably never enters one’s mind. But looking at its origins it’s not nice to women. And calling me a fool is not cool. You could be nice and argue without name calling.

      • Last words: that using the word “pussy” as a slur to characterize men as “cowardly” and “weak” is still misogynistic because it relies on degrading a woman’s body. It reinforces the sexist logic that being called a woman or, in this case, a body part of a woman, is always negative, demeaning, and shameful. It reminds us that in order for men to feel truly insulted, they must be compared to women because women, as heteropatriarchy teaches us, are weaker and inferior to men.

      • *scrolls through entire thread*
        *feels like siting back on a rocking chair on a porch and intoning “He ain’t all there ain’t he?” with regards to Greg*

        Rather energetic dancer, though…

    • What’s the etymology of “die in a fire?”

      • Well Mr. Burton sir, “die in a fire” when used by a properly credentialed Leftist intellectual is a perfectly acceptable phrase used to mean “I don’t like them”.

        Now if a Conservative were to use that phrase it would clearly be an actionable death threat, and anyone would be perfectly within the bounds of reasonable discourse to sic a SWAT team on them.

        Or possibly we could have Greg Wirtala bore them to death with concern trolling. Hell of a way to die.

      • Well the word dick and pussy started to be derisive of characteristics associated with either gender. It’s not complimentary. Unless if you are calling me a pussy because you think I am cat like. That’d be awesome. Cats are cool.

  20. What a supercilious, patronizing asshole.

  21. Uggh. I read the article that Scalzi linked to by the Marine Instructor. He mad a few good points, a fair number of incorrect points, and ended up making a tired either/or argument…’you are better off just trying to minimize your risk.’ I have yet to meet a gun owner or instructor that didn’t take steps to minimize risk and avoid unnecessary conflict.

    The comments on his blog are even worse. The stupid opinions are bad enough, but there are tons of factual errors and myths.

    • I carry a gun all the time, everywhere I can legally carry one. I also minimize my risk, simply because I don’t want the hassle of having to deal with the criminal justice system. Since my hometown is 70 percent black, the odds are if I did have to use it, I’d be using it on a black person (after all, if 70 percent of the people here are black, then there’s a 70 percent chance my attacker is black).

      I have no desire to be the next George Zimmerman, so I minimize my risk.

      Of course, trying to tell women how to minimize their risk is apparently victim blaming and therefore not allowed either.

    • I’m having trouble getting past:

      (This is a shotgun, a good choice in home defense. You need to
      understand each piece and how it fits together as well as how to strip,
      clean, inspect, lubricate and reassemble the weapon. Good luck, you
      should only need the one shot.)

      Because, sorry, no. I don’t. He doesn’t need to know the purpose of every bit, and how to service it, in his computer to write the article. Most folks find the mechanisms under the car hood a mystery, yet drive. We need to know what the knobs and levers and buttons in front of the driver do. We need to know how to add gas, and how often to change the oil.

      Similarly we don’t need to be an armorer to use a weapon. I’ve had the trigger on my Mossberg apart, let’s see… carry the 10, multiply by pi…. zero times.

      • I owned a gun store, was competition shooter, instructor, and all around accomplished gun nut, and my gunsmith wouldn’t allow me into his shop because I broke everything I touched. :) So no, I think you can do perfectly well with out having to detail strip anything. Basic cleaning and maintenance, and that’s super simple.

      • My basic reaction was “Dude, Have you even looked at Africa lately?” If a child soldier in the middle of a Banana republic can figure out how to field strip an AK, I’d hope a grown *insert post-binary gender of your choice here* would be able to figure it out.

    • What that “instructor” spouted off was just another version of “I’m the only guy in this room professional enough to carry a Glock .40″. It’s ego-puff wankery. It’s like saying that you need to be able to replace a camshaft in order to own a car.

      • What that “instructor” spouted off was just another version of “I’m the only guy in this room professional enough to carry a Glock .40″.

        …but didn’t accidentally shoot himself?

      • Patrick: Maybe I thought that a loudmouth showoff who shot himself in the leg while trying to impress a room full of children was a pretty good metaphor, here…

  22. Never one to be a lock-step conformist, John Scalzi makes the stunning claim he does NOT hate women. He further asserts he is the “basic standard of decency” for all men.

    “Today I’m getting a lot of credit for being a decent man, as far as women are concerned. Two things here. One: Thanks. Two: The fact I’m getting so much credit for doing what should really be THE BASIC STANDARD OF DECENCY is why #YesAllWomen matters.” – John Scalzi

    Well done. I predict an extra surprise in this week’s pussy ration.

    • Someone who apparently thinks men need to be trained not to commit rapes – himself included – probably isn’t in the best position to be judging “decency.”

      Just sayin’.

    • Sigh. Mr Scalzi all you did was point out a word that in roots is misogynistic. Thanks. However this does make you right. Now that I read your comments I now see you were in fact passively calling Mr Correia’s readers women haters. Had much more respect for you when I believed you were pointing out the nuances of the word pussy. So disappointed.

      • That Scalzi quote is from May. 27.

      • And now that I see you acknowledge this, I’m fine with you.

        Kindly disregard all comments made by me since you posted this. I offer my apologies.

      • Greg, will you go and post this comment on Scalzi’s page, or are you just going to post it here where he is unlikely to see it?

    • “I predict an extra surprise in this week’s pussy ration.”

      The only “surprise” will be that, for once, it isn’t his own.

    • Is there a dumber hashtag than “YesAllWomen”? What idiot came up with that anyway?

      • #NotAllPussies

      • Someone who was trying to provide a retort/counterpoint to the #NotAllMen hashtag that started going around in the wake of the Santa Barbara killings.

        That’s right, #YesAllWomen was created to DEBUNK people trying to say that not all men are like the Santa Barbara killer. In other words, it implicitly states that all men ARE like the Santa Barbara killer.

        #YesAllWomen is despicable.

      • “Someone who was trying to provide a retort/counterpoint to the #NotAllMen hashtag that started going around in the wake of the Santa Barbara killings.

        That’s right, #YesAllWomen was created to DEBUNK people trying to say that not all men are like the Santa Barbara killer. In other words, it implicitly states that all men ARE like the Santa Barbara killer.”

        Seriously? I don’t do the Twitter thing so I missed this. That is ridiculous. And…still makes no sense! Not all men, yes all women…???)(^*(*^&(*&

      • Yup.

        I don’t really do the twitter thing much myself, (it’s an absolutely terrible way to communicate. The way I see it, anything that can be said in less that 160 characters probably isn’t worth saying in the first place. Come to think of it, that might explain why Scalzi was so caught up with the title of the post, rather than the content; the twitter crowd can’t seem to THINK in anything greater than 160 characters…) but I heard that stated (in more flattering terms, obviously) in a report about the #YesAllWomen hashtag on NPR, of all places, so liberals even admit that’s the source of the hashtag.

        The idea behind it is that, yes, even if all men aren’t like the Santa Barbara killer, all women have to deal with “rape culture” and unwelcome advances, and the idea that all men feel like they are entitled to their bodies.

        It’s total BS, of course, and since it was created specifically in response to #NotAllMen it implies terrible things about all men no matter what they say, in the exact same way that Scalzi implied Larry was a misogynist without being willing to come out and say it, but that’s the idea behind it.

        That’s one of the many things that really gets to me about the “rape culture” meme, though. They’re not complaining about a culture that supports RAPE among men, because that culture doesn’t exist. They’re complaining about a sense of entitlement among men. If someone is an entitled asshole, teaching them about rape isn’t going to change them. And guess who it is that’s supporting the development of a culture of entitlement, in both men and women? Hint: It’s certainly not the conservatives…

  23. I have tried to read some of the cool stuff at boingboing and Whatever on the premise that disagreeing with someone’s politics isn’t reason to shun their (virtual) company or products.

    The flavor of hatey mchateyness there is less to my taste than the flavor here, so I don’t bother anymore. There are some jackwagons here too, mind – but on the balance I am less likely to be blamed for EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD at MHN purely on the basis of being white, straight and male. At the other two places I mentioned it is the default setting.

    Given the traffic there, I will not be missed and that is perfectly cool. Bring on the next Huggening, STAT!

  24. No woman is as tough as Fail. Fail can eat 6 chicken pot pies in a row and wrestle giant snakes up to 2 ft. long.

  25. I started this year, quite literally, with tons of death threats on Twitter. I wasn’t worried about them. Like Larry told me then, liberals can’t shoot well. Fair enough. What really bothered me was how these people also wished death upon my own children, saying they hoped they were killed in a school shooting (since I was talking about gun rights)

    Since then, I’ve been called a racist, sexist, misogynist, fascist, communist (the joys of being a libertarian), an idiot, and any number of things by those who also scream about “tolerance”. The funny thing is, I’m tolerant. Hey, I don’t give a shit what you and yours do, where you come from, or anything else. None of that matters to me. I do everything in my power to view people based on their capabilities and character, and not even necessarily in that order (depends on the circumstances).

    Last night, after being told that every aspect of our culture reenforces the idea that women aren’t human, I snapped. I’m done.

    I’m about half a heartbeat away from becoming almost all of the things they have accused me of. At least then they’ll be true for a change. I’m done caring about the historical wrongs visited upon whatever the group of the day is. I’m done.

    They want to say I hate them for whatever reason? Fine. Frankly, I do now. Not because they’re gay, black, female, or whatever. I hate them because they are vile. I hate them because they spill out so much hate that I’ve become infected by it.

    “Then we won’t buy your stuff.”

    Good. You wouldn’t like it anyways. There’s not a message there for you. Now go away.

  26. John Scalzi makes the stunning claim he is against rape. Is this some new fad? How many geological epochs is this basic standard of decency ahead of me?

  27. So…how long will it be until Correia unseats Vox Day as “The Most Despised SF/F Writer Like, Ever®” in the eyes of pussified libprogs?

    Anybody taking bets? I’ll put $20 on this Fourth of July. (I kid, I kid. :P)

    • Not even close. Tom Kratsman is still their #1 target. Vox Day is #2. Albeit, Larry is closing in on #3 now.

      • The handwringing quilties don’t like it when they take a tetsubo to the face :-)

      • If he’s closing in on #3, then who is #3?

      • Not even close. Tom Kratsman is still their #1 target. Vox Day is #2. Albeit, Larry is closing in on #3 now.

        But the popcorn sound effect of mass idiot head-splodey whenever Tom, Vox, Larry or MadMike posts is so….soothing.

  28. I love S/F and Fantasy. One of the greatest things in the world is to grab a burger and a beer sit down and be immersed in someone’s vision. I am so tired of people bringing to the discussion about writing the author’s politics. Frankly I don’t care. If I go to the zoom I don’t care if the monkeys are for or against the 2nd Amendment I just want to be entertained. So please all you crazy fringe people shut up. Quit trying to ruin it all for me. This genre should be open to all. If you don’t like it the author’s viewpoints so what? My goodness what happened to acceptance of others and diversity. There is room for both the Eric Flints and Larry Correia. That’s what makes this genre so great. People need to stop being mean and let these monkeys entertain us.

    • Me and Eric Flint get along really well, and we talk politics.

      The difference is Eric Flint doesn’t try to silence dissent and he’s not a liar.

      • Which once again awesome. And I’ll assume you are talking about Mr Scalzi and not me. Kind of seems like the focus has shifted on one word than the issue. Pussy the word in it’s origins is misogynistic. However, by Mr Scalzi alluding to the fact if you use the word you are a woman hater is ludicrous. It clouds the issue. All I was hoping was some one to say, “Yep that right. But doesn’t represent who I am. Mr Scalzi you missed the point. I wanted to let you know your attempt at humor or whatever, you were trying to Twitter, in my view was weak and cowardly and I chose a word that powerfully states my opinion. I would have thought better of you.”

      • Greg, “Pussy” is not “misogynistic.” Please understand you are employing extremist feminist cant, and not normal word usage. Cultural “misogyny” in the way QUILTBAGs use it is demonization theory. Employing it on the level you are, which must surely add up to tens of millions of human beings, mostly men, is itself – unsurprisingly – misandry. You’ll notice we don’t demonize women. We go after names – actual people – of all stripes. Learn the difference between a hate-group and the hate-speech it employs to take out entire groups and normal human beings.

      • Never said you are “demonizing” women. I am not saying if you say pussy you are a women hater. All I brought up is the ORIGINS of the word. Never said whether you should or shouldn’t use the word. Never said only women haters use the word. Just saying if you read the definition of misogyny pussy kind of fits the bill.

      • And because Mr Scalzi focused on the word you used, says more about him than anything else. I have always found that those who call others names or allude to being “haters” are usually the ones who see this side within themselves and instead of trying to fix their own damaged selfs, try to find that fault in others and disparaging and ridicule them. Which I think is the definition of a bully.

      • You are missing the point Greg. If this peering into the cracks is so perceptive, ask yourself why it is 100% negative? Surely we could find semantics to balance out this underlying “misogyny.” But no, they never do – it’s all bad. Taking American slang and turning it into unconscious hate-speech is classic demonization theory. It’s the type of weird arguments QUILTBAGs devote their every waking moment towards constructing. Read enough of their rhetoric and the pattern begins to leap out at you. How many times do you have to hear “white straight male” to get it? How many time do you have to NEVER hear black gay lesbian used in the pejorative before you get it? These people are identity freaks and their right and wrong is literally white and black, man and woman, gay and straight.

      • No I do get the point. You don’t get mine. Pussy was not created to be a compliment. It is meant to disparaging, reflecting those characteristics we associate to be repugnant and hateful with women . It was not create to spout the virtues of a woman but rather to be hurtful. An aspect we hate. Misogyny means hatred of women. Pussy fits.

      • American slang is not institutional hatred. And you’ve just now figured out it’s an insult? American men don’t hate women. You have to be nuts to take slang and mangle that out of it. Or someone brainwashed into intersectional cant. Notice how there’s no weird theories about tens of millions of women hating men? That’s because you’d have to be nuts to believe that too. What you in fact have is a population of sicko extremist supremacist women who are probably close to statistical zero per cent of the population wrangling all this nuthatchery out of women’s studies. There is no such thing as misogyny the way these mentally ill people mean it.

  29. I’m on board with Greg. Pussy is a gendered slur, just as dick and prick are gendered slurs. I have on occasion found myself using dick or prick as an insult and have had to slap myself upside the head. If it’s not okay to use a female word to insult men, then absolutely the reverse applies.

    Mr Burton, just because this topic makes you uncomfortable doesn’t equate with you being right. Just because some people have taken the notion of gendered slurs and misogyny way past the point of reason does not mean there is no reason in the argument. You are clearly very angry and bitter about feminism — not entirely without legitimate cause. But you lose support when you are so determined to deny every last legitimate expression of concern with gender issues simply because some people have galloped away from balance and reason.

    I have no truck with the lies and bullshit spewed about Mr Correia, who for me speaks with bedrock commonsense – even though I do wince at his use of the gendered slur pussy. But there are those of us with a conservative bent who still believe in the bedrock principles of feminism, who aren’t manhaters, who despair of today’s prevailing misandry among many self-identified feminists — and who don’t appreciate being told that they don’t know what they’re talking about by men who have allowed their personal bitterness and bad experiences completely occlude their judgement.

    • Where’d you get the idea I’m uncomfortable? You’re the one uncomfortable with slurs. I’ve moved through a variety of extreme environments you can’t imagine. Nothing makes me feel uncomfortable. And what’s with the goofy Orwellian comment that there may be reason way past the point of reason? Are you daffy?

      And where’d you get the idea I’m angry and bitter about feminism? I’m angry and bitter that supremacist racist and sexist bigots have mainstreamed themselves into SFF. If you’re a fan of bell hooks let me tell you something: I am not. What does feminism have to do with that? I use the term intersectional or QUILTBAG and feminist too because that’s how they self-identify. In reality they are not feminists but bigots who’ve co-opted that word. Adele Wilde-Blavatsky – herself a fairly radical feminist – says straight out intersectionalism has been hijacked by racists. Go to her feed – learn something. You think I don’t want my mother, sister, nieces and lovers to have equality before the law and live expansive lives? What fun would it be knowing women in that situation? I like smart, quick women who like to explore and have good times, not sit in a kitchen.

      And I am not determined to deny jack shit. I’ve made myself very clear on this issue: if you can’t bring up your own issues – like diversity – without defaming millions of people at a go, then fuck you. QUILTBAGs blame white men for everything like neo-Nazis blame Jews. That’s not my opinion, but one so extensively documented within SFF it can’t be denied. Obviously the morons doing that don’t agree with that – that’s why they act like KKK and fancy themselves anti-racists. What human with a mind of an adult would be fooled by N.K. Jemisin or K. Tempest Bradford for one second, let alone cheer them?

      As for losing support – who cares? Why would I worry about the support of people who don’t understand what I’m saying, since they’re such a large part of the problem in the first place? What I am doing is informing sane people – people who don’t believe in group defamation or idiotic conspiracy theories. Go to this Twitter feed right now:

      https://twitter.com/jennygadget/with_replies

      Realize that nuttiness is a drop in the bucket. Follow all the names, right out to the edges, do your own research. I’m not asking anyone to take my word for anything. Do your homework. These people are obsessed, and they hate men. And they are all interconnected in the SFF community. Their ideology is so stifling they practically talk in buzz-words. Read enough of it and it leaps right out at you. They’re like robots. They’re the ones who are bitter – they seem like really unhappy people, and my research has proved at least a simple majority suffer from chronic depression and sociopathies. I know that because they publicly state it. They’re frickin’ crazy AND medicated.

      I haven’t galloped away from anything, nor thrown out babies with bathwater. I make sharp distinctions between legitimate gripe and nutcases. A legitimate gripe makes a case – points at trends – institutions. Bullshit goes on about “privilege,” or two guys. May as well talk about basilisks. How many times are these morons going to multiply Vox Day into an army. And they straight up lie about Golden Age SF, as I’ve proved. None of them would survive a debate with me for 2 min. – that’s why they wouldn’t come to the Guardian, and instead commented with each other on Twitter. They were scared cuz they couldn’t delete and ban and close comments.

      You really don’t know enough about my views to comment on them. There is legitimate egalitarian feminism and QUILTBAGs. QUILTBAGs hate traditional feminists, but you’d have to do your homework to know that – they’re virtually at war. I’ve never said there aren’t feminists who aren’t man-haters – quite the opposite.

      As far as your bootless speculation on my “personal bitterness and bad experiences,” go fuck yourself. What proof of that do you have? Women are the greatest thing in this world and I’ve had great experiences with them. What the hell do normal women have to do with fem neo-Nazi supremacists? By your doxy reckoning, we fought Jim Crow in America because we were frustrated something or other and we shouldn’t have been so hard on the KKK.

      I’ve laid out facts and quotes. What the hell does that have to do with my personal judgement? I could be an insane alcoholic and if my facts were straight they’d be straight, because quotes tell the whole story. Facts can be looked at – no need to trust my judgment if I source them. Frankly if you wince at “pussy” as a gendered slur, you are a pussy, cuz you’re using intersectional lingo and ideology and don’t even know its source. You can’t even read your own mind – don’t try mine.

      As for bitterness, you wish you’d lived my life, buddy.

      • For the record? I’m a woman. I venture to guess I’ve got more experience at what it’s like to be on the receiving end of gendered slurs than you do, or what it’s like to live with misogyny.

        You make many excellent points. I often agree with you. But from the outside, looking in, your totally legitimate grievances appear to blind you to the times when others, even others you don’t care for, happen to be right. Or in the neighbourhood of right.

        All Greg said was that pussy is a misogynistic term of attack, using a disdain of women to disparage a man. He’s right about that. It doesn’t mean that every man who uses the term is a woman hater. Sometimes it’s simple thoughtlessness. Good people can be thoughtless. I admire and respect the hell out of LC. I still wish he hadn’t used a gendered slur.

        It just makes me sad to see a guy being attacked by other guys because he points out something that happens to true.

      • Well, we’re going to agree to disagree, cuz neither you nor anyone else is going to tell me how to talk by claiming I’m lighting up 3.5 billion women.

      • Underwhelmed, look up my linguistic analysis (I’ve only made 2 posts other than this one so they should be easy to find with a quick ctrl+f). I also am a woman, and I think you and Greg are blowing things dramatically out of proportion, especially given standard American usage of the term. We can debate cross cultural implications, but neither of you seem interested in any actual discussion.

        If you do decide to enter an actual discussion, realize I am at work so will be slow for the next several hours.

  30. Hey anybody, how can one post images to comments and have them show up as images. The html “img” tag didn’t work. Can it be done?

    • Blowing it out of proportion? You give me too much credit. All I am writing about is the origins of a word, which to me is a pretty simple thing. People get so focused on a word they forget what the true issue is. Some got all worked up over something that to me was an interesting word. Somehow people believed I was castigating others for using it. I think I was pretty clear I was only writing about the word, but others didn’t. It was kind of silly. If you’d like I am more than happy to write about how crazy people are when someone expresses their opinion. I too believe it is just plain nuts to think we need to teach boys that rape is bad. That’s dumb. Miss Nevada’s response was great. She is exactly right in her thinking about not being a victim and being a confidant woman who is able to defend herself. Society is never going to be able to change individuals who are deviants. Rapists exist and no matter of education will change that, except for empowering women with the skills and attitude to dissuade an attacker. Also Mr Scalzi was ludicrous. Just because you use a word doesn’t mean you are a hater, however I think the word, all by itself as in not a part of the discussion, fits the definition of misogyny when it was created. To take what I said to be other than a simple exploration into it’s etymology is just weird to me and I don’t understand. And yes Underwhelmed I got bored too.

      • Greg, if you thought it was an interesting word, and you are that interested in linguistics you should have chosen your own words with great care. You did not. You defended the term as mysoginistic, which in the context of the ongoing discussion meant you were supporting Mr. Scalzi’s claim. I am willing to entertain the notion that it was unintentional. You focused on misogyny not the term, not the usage of pejorative which might have kept your point to the etymological rather than the accusatory, and you completely ignored the point both times I tried to make that point. I somehow suspect you will ignore the point yet again.

      • I still want to see the links of Mr. Wirtala going to other places where they use a word like “Dick” or “Bastard” and calling them on the origins of those words, in misandry (a remarkably close parallel to “pussy”) in one case and the ultimate in “victim blaming” in the other.

        Admitting the origin factor in those words when expressly called on it here does not count in that. I want to see him behaving the same way elsewhere as he has behaved here.

        After all, if it’s just an interest in words and their origins he should apply that across the board, right? Not just as an oh-so-reasonable attempt to cut down political or social opposition (classic concern trolling).

        And so I wait, but not with ‘bated breath. (Blue is not my color.)

      • And there you’ve hit right on it, writerinblack: the culture which so easily believes in a thing like woman-hatred sees the exact same concept in women – man-hatred – as some impossible weirdness to be laughed at. This is not a culture of ideas, but identity. Right identity, right idea. In fact it operates exactly opposite to reason, ideas and principle.

        You see the same thing with their idiotic diversity: only white male heterosexual groups need that. That same group of SWM are also forbidden white or male awards or anthologies. The funny thing there is SWMs are the only ones who show no interest in such things, yet are the ones accused of that. Meanwhile, gays, PoC and women are up to their gills in segregated everything: awards, writing workshops, anthologies, the whole nine yards.

        The bizarre conclusion is that gays, PoC and feminists are making the ironic argument that the only group principled enough to create and maintain things like law, a Constitution, awards, anthologies and other venues open to all are straight white males. But then that’s how crazy people who lie like they breathe act anyway, so why be surprised. There’s your QUILTBAG intersectionalism: batshit crazy and dumb as a rock.

  31. Greg Wirtala, you have a nice point but people always get confused when I talk about the cute calico vaginas my fiancée and I rescued…

    • HA!

      • If you look into the origins of the word ‘vagina’, one must conclude that according to modern feminist theory, any and all use of it, including feminist use, is misogynist.

        See, the Latin vaginus was a euphemism, which was used instead of cunnus. Vaginus literally means sheathe. Using the word inherently endorses the ideas a sexist patriarchy had about its purpose.

        Next time on ‘Abusing Leftist Language Manipulation Techniques For Fun And Little Real Gain’ : Leftists Speaking English Is Appropriation

  32. Underwhelmed you let people tell you what to say and sooner rather than later they’re telling you what to think.

  33. I’m surprised nobody clicked on this: Scalzi must also be a misogynist for accepting the use of Pussy as an insult. Rather than soliquizing about how wonderful pussies are, and what an honor is it to be compared to one.

  34. Imagine I’d got in a fight and some guy had tried to bite my face off and another time a guy tried to rob me with a knife to my throat. Then I put that on the head of my Twitter feed and never shut up about it all day every single day. Then I Tweet stuff to people all day to please not mention biting and knives because it’s triggering and I’m a survivor. That’s why I don’t trust some of these folks. They wave that shit around like it’s a medal of honor. It’s pretty clear they’re more interested in playing a victim card and occupying some daffy moral high ground than anything else. If this stuff is so triggering, start by shutting up about it, taking it off of your Twitter bio or even staying off of Twitter.

  35. An Alternate Title for Mr. Scalzi’s Title.

    ” The Empty Smarmy Clueless Masturbatory Attention Seeking Twitter Emission That Makes You Look Like Yet One More Loud Obnoxious Perpetual Adolescent Paper Tiger Trying To Escape His Rapidly Diminishing Popularity and Recapture Even the Vaguest Appearance of Long Lost Relevance Like Back When He Still Got Plugged On Instapundit and Stuff.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 11,921 other followers

%d bloggers like this: