- @clarissethorn It’s hard to be specific enuf on broad topics like #gender in 140char. There are gender-aware !BDSM ppl—there’re also idiots. in reply to clarissethorn #
- @clarissethorn Such assertions are useful: !BDSM ppl are a group considering themselves “enlightened” to an extreme. We need a wake up call. in reply to clarissethorn #
- An interesting day—blissfully slow morning, frustrating afternoon fighting software, then some difficult #emotions. Trying to find my place. #
- @TESKink Leading the way on Twitter for sexuality communities is NOT about self-promotion—if you’re here to market, you’ve missed the point. in reply to TESKink #
- I can’t believe how quickly+much things have changed for me. Want time to blog it. Being a welcomed third here is amazing but isn’t my path. #
- THIS is why #sex #communities NEED to adopt http://Laconi.ca over @Twitter. Commercial porn did it 1st: http://pinktweet.com via @adrianlang #
- @AliceSinAerie Good to hear you’re thinking about how to promote @TESKink by doing new things. :) I’ll be eagerly watching what comes of it. in reply to AliceSinAerie #
- @gregknicholson Document-centric #computing is an old+intuitive #idea. Some projects, notably EtoileOS.com, are trying to get us back there. #
- !GLBT Oh fuck. I had enuf trouble getting past bi chic in 1990s. Now this? http://tr.im/jpZZ “How #Male #Bisexuality Got Cool” by @raquelita #
- Ew. “Man crush” is bad enough—like “woman dentist,” man/woman are not adjectives. Now we have “bromances”? Just, no. http://tr.im/jpZZ !GLBT #
- @katebornstein @MinaMeow Kami Tora has #futanari pics. http://tr.im/ktfuta Also see @ironrose13’s http://SexTipsForZombies.wordpress.com. :) in reply to katebornstein #
- I’ve used some #media #skills for !sex workers discussed at http://blog.misscalico.com/?p=752 in job #interviews. You ALWAYS have an agenda. #
- @writingdirty @aTheo Glad for change in that direction, but I’m specifically frustrated at bisexuality=cool, cuz I struggled w/that already. in reply to writingdirty #
- Got my http://BoltBus.com ticket for @Sex20Con NYC to DC bus ride w/ @Mollena & anyone else on the sex bus. Too bad it’s not a short bus. :) #
- @muppetK That’s just it: #bisexuality is de rigeur for women (at least among many !sex spaces). I’m bi & I’d like that NOT to happen to men. in reply to muppetK #
- @muppetK Partly my issue is lack of prior option meant only last few wks truly solidified “I really AM #bisexual!” http://tinyurl.com/c3sye9 in reply to muppetK #
- @muppetK “I was bi before it was cool” stories: http://tr.im/jqqF Also, Gender & Technology preso http://tinyurl.com/b3u87t has > 2 genders. in reply to muppetK #
- @muppetK @writingdirty You’re more optimistic than me. Bi-as-default brings it’s own problems—it REMOVES choice, creates false expectations. in reply to muppetK #
- @muppetK You can get a better recording of my Gender & Technology preso from the #KFANYC video by @audaciaray at http://vimeo.com/3553527 :) in reply to muppetK #
- @katebornstein So true! I’ve got 3 !MacOSX “desktop pics” folders sorted by sexual explicitness. I switch to a less risqué folder in public. in reply to katebornstein #
- “Study finds children exposed to #pornography may expect !sex to be enjoyable” http://icanhaz.com/onionsex Frighteningly accurate satire. :) #
- @cycles What? :) You gotta admit, it’s pretty neat that you can customize collections of desktop pictures via symlinking things on your Mac! #
- All right. I’ve got a shit ton of work ahead of me this afternoon. Twitterscope down, as my co-author would say. Off to the CSS mines w/ me. #
- @sarahdopp Does this mean I can meet you @Sex20Con? That makes me excited since I’ve been a not-so-secret admirer of yours for a while. ^_^; in reply to sarahdopp #
- !NYC #MTA #map envisioned as an anatomical penis cross-section. http://tinyurl.com/ctuw3p I’ll never look at the #subway the same way again. #
- @robinberjon @stubbornella “Object oriented” CSS actually makes perfect sense to me. Even markup appropriates OO terminology; class=”vcard”? in reply to robinberjon #
- @Septimus1812 Bangs are !group symbols on http://Identi.ca. They signify an audience—hashes are @Hashtags & signify a notice’s key concepts. in reply to Septimus1812 #
- @stubbornella When you speak of ooCSS, I hear things like organizational techniques, is-a relationships, & so on. Am I misunderstanding you? in reply to stubbornella #
- !webdev Do #Safari & #Firefox really not handle !CSS like `img[title]:before { content: attr(title); }`? Today’s test shows only Opera does. #
- @maymaym Maybe I recall doing that in #Safari. Seems #Firefox had this issue since 2002? http://tinyurl.com/c5hunc #
- @sanbeiji Are you sure? Neither #Firefox 3.0.8 or latest #WebKit build handles img:before #CSS declaration block at all. Still, Opera only. in reply to sanbeiji #
- @gregknicholson Oh, if I only had time to build a #sexuality #community site w/ #Laconica. :) In the mean time @KinkForAll has my attention. #
May, do you object to all use of nouns as modifiers? For instance, do you object to phrases like the following?
building standards
business meeting
dress code
grocery store
relationship strategies
toenail clippings
If not, why does it disturb you so much when “man” and “woman” are used as modifiers? Are those nouns special to you in a way that building, business, dress, grocery, relationship, and toenail are not? And if those types of phrases do bother you, why do you object to this extremely commonplace bit of ordinary English grammar?
Can’t tell if there’s snark there or not, but…assuming you’re serious, I think May isn’t talking about grammar annoyances but is commenting on the sexism/heterosexism of terms like “man crush,” which assumes the normal state of things to be that men do not get crushes on (i.e. are not attracted to) each other; similarly, “woman dentist” perpetuates the idea that “dentist” without modifiers = “male dentist.”
Trying to think of any case in which adding “man” or “woman” (or “male/female”) as a modifier wouldn’t be sexist or heterosexist, but failing. I think it’s just the nature of the thing — any time you specify that this is a “man” thing or “woman” thing, you’re assuming that the thing itself is inherently male or female, and that a modifier is necessary to show that in *this* case, you’re talking about a different version of that thing. Like “man purse” — because purses are for *women*. I mean, even “women’s” clothes and “men’s” clothes are really so subjective…our culture does a lot to reinforce the idea that women and men have totally separate interests, needs, and desires, and I think the point is that using language like this just helps to support that notion.
…er…my rambling $.02…
I don’t disagree, but I hate when people frame their philosophical arguments as though they are making a point about grammar, especially when the alleged grammar point is simply wrong. The fact that “man/woman are not adjectives” has nothing to do with the sexism argument or with why “woman dentist” is annoying. There is nothing grammatically wrong about “woman dentist” or “man crush” or “lady doctor.”
@Dev:
And if I were having a conversation about grammar, I would agree with you, but I was having a conversation about gendered language, so I don’t. :) Failing to see a broader context in any conversation is the same as not seeing the forest for the trees.
Then, seriously, why did you mention the fact that “man” and “woman” are not adjectives? Was it just a slip? It implies something false (that you think it’s not grammatical to modify a noun with another noun) and doesn’t add to your point.
@Dev: You’re certainly pedantically correct. For my point, see my explanation: