01.20.10
Posted in Feminism, Language, culture at 12:54 am by kyrias
Thene told me that when I say feminazis, not only am I not being politically correct, but I’m not really communicating what I really mean to say.
That troubles me — the latter more than the former. Much, actually.
So, to be clear, when I say feminazis, I don’t mean all the feminists in the world.
I mean, specifically, those women who de-value women’s work. They are opposed to women living subordinate to men in the roles of housewives and SAHMs. They consider women who are not desirous of climbing the corporate ladder with the best of them as “throwbacks” and a waste of the “foremothers” who suffered for the cause.
I mean those women who seem to all but hate men. The patriarchy and by extension, all men, is the root of all evil. The world would be much more peaceful if only women were in charge. Society as a whole would make more sense if only women led the way. Men are nothing but hulking brutes who are all capable/willing/desirous of raping women, in thought if not in deed. Those women who get terribly offended when a man opens a door for them or waves them onto the train first. God forbid that a man give up his seat or something equally archaic.
I mean those women who have issues with women with long hair, who wear skirts, or who actually might want to have children.
That’s the sort of person I mean when I say feminazi. For the sake of being politically correct, and much more importantly, to be clearer in speech — I shall just refer to them as those women in the future.
Thene mentioned the use of “second-wavers”, but I’m fairly sure that there has to be some second-wavers who don’t hate men and who wouldn’t mind wearing skirts.
Radical and extreme has been ruled out — because as Caesura pointed out, there’s more than one way of interpreting them.
Any other ideas on what phrase can be used?
Permalink
07.14.09
Posted in Language tagged culture shock at 12:01 am by kyrias
It’s lovely having friends from other places.
I keep having these discussions with Thene about what we call food things.
So those fluffy, round, thickish cake-like things we make on a flat hot surface with flour, eggs, milk, and a bit of leavening?
Thene calls those drop scones. The USians I know call them “pancakes”. The Chinese call them “fried flatbreads”
The thin sort of carbohydrate vehicle that is common made from a slurry of egg, flour and milk that you cook on a flat, hot, surface?
Thene calls those pancakes. The USians I know call them crepes. The Chinese call them “French style thin fried flatbreads” when they’re trying to be ostentatious and accurate.
The fluffy inside, golden brown on the outside, thick disk-like things that are baked in the oven and commonly made with eggs, flour, sugar, fat of some sort, and leavening?
Thene calls them scones, the Americans call them biscuits, and I don’t know what the Chinese call them. I haven’t seen them so perhaps they just haven’t caught on. Happily for Thene, the Joy of Baking agrees with her definition.
The golden-brown, crispy exterior, sometimes crunchy or crumbly interior carbohydrate vehicle that sometimes has the buttery richness of shortbread that often looks like this, a.k.a in wedges?
Thene calls them flapjacks — which the USians use as a synonym for pancakes (the fluffy sort) — which apparently in the UK is a “tray baked treat”. The USians call them scones.
As for those round, usually sweet confections that are often thin, crispy and have added stuff like nuts and dried fruit?
Thene calls them biscuits, USians call them cookies. The Chinese call them “dry flatbreads”.
As for our “muffins”? The UKians apparently just call them cake. What we call English muffins is their muffins.
…any other definitions that need to be clarified? I have decided that when I speak of such baked goods, I shall describe it in excruciating detail so as to leave out all confusion.
Permalink