Ship of Fools: No Swearing . . . If You're A Girl

Thread: No Swearing . . . If You're A Girl Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024596

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

A religious school in New Jersey has asked only its female students to take a "No Cursing" pledge.

quote:
Catholic school girls think it’s just plain sexist that they were asked to take a no-cursing pledge on Friday — and the boys weren’t.

So let's go down the "is it sexism?" checklist.
Gender essentialism?

quote:
Lori Flynn, a teacher who launched the civility campaign at Queen of Peace High School in North Arlington, said the rationale was simple: “We want ladies to act like ladies.”

Check!

Trying to pretend a double standard isn't a double standard?

quote:
Lori Flynn, a teacher who organized the campaign at Queen of Peace High School in North Arlington, told The Record of Woodland Park there is no double-standard. She says that while males weren't asked to take the vow, they have been asked not to swear when girls are near.

Check.

Holding women responsible for the bad actions of men?

quote:
Teachers said they hoped that if the girls focused on cleaning up their speech on campus for a month, their improved manners would take hold and rub off on the boys.

That's a big check!

Now as a religious institution the school has a good deal of latitude in crafting gendered or outright sexist policies for its students, but the rest of us can still point and laugh (or point and be appalled.) Is there a reason a religious school should be deeply concerned about language used by its female students, but indifferent to similar language used by male students?

I've put this in Purg since it's not about "the role of women in church and Christian households", but if the hosts consider a Catholic school to be close enough to "church" to fall under DH rules, go ahead an move it.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Incredible. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Teachers said they hoped that if the girls focused on cleaning up their speech on campus for a month, their improved manners would take hold and rub off on the boys.

In this context, that's unfortunate wording.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Teachers said they hoped that if the girls focused on cleaning up their speech on campus for a month, their improved manners would take hold and rub off on the boys.
In this context, that's unfortunate wording.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

First they came for the girls, and I said nothing...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Isn't this being dogmatic in rather a silly way.

Girls swearing is unladylike. Nobody can disagree with that. Boys swearing is ungentlemanly. Nobody can disagree with that either. If getting girls not to swear does mean they can shame boys into not swearing as well, that must be a great idea.

Saying, 'we can't try this because some people might argue it's discriminatory', is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

The sensible test is 'does it work?'. If it does, great. If it doesn't, nobody will know until the school has tried it.

[ 04. February 2013, 18:56: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Girls swearing is unladylike. Nobody can disagree with that. Boys swearing is ungentlemanly. Nobody can disagree with that either. If getting girls not to swear does mean they can shame boys into not swearing as well, that must be a great idea.

Then why not start with the boys?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

So girls hold all the responsibility to civilize people, and boys are totally incapable of even thinking about public courtesy, and if they ever offend anyone, it's down to the other person's over-sensitivity or the fact that the women in this guy's life haven't done their job.

What gets me is not just the obvious built in insult to women-- and the unspoken message to girls that they are required to give out respect and dignity that they should never foolishly hope to get back-- what gets me is people who promote ideas like this don't realize how much those ideas are fucking up our boys' lives when those boys internalize them. Too many young men I know curse whenever they want, yell whenever they want, criticize whenever they want, demand whatever they want, and then somewhere down the road they are truly heartbroken, saying, "I really , reallyloved that girl, but I always seemed to make her cry..."

Teaching boys that they don't have to be courteous serves a functional purpose, I guess, of preserving the entitlement to detach from inconvenient situations, partners, etc. Be as big an asshole as your manly self would want, and whoever complains is just too "high maintenance", right? Always something better around the corner.

But for those young men who actually want healthy, lasting relationships-- not just with their partners, but with their friends, family, work-mates, the whole bit-- the prime directive of "don't let anyone cramp your style" can really wind up causing them pain.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

Yes, it's discriminatory. And very unfair.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Please. Can you see any good reason that the school shouldn't just get all its students to pledge off swearing for thirty days? And if the girls could do it better than the boys, that might shame the boys into better behavior. But assuming that boys will be boys and it is unfair to ask them to behave more civilly is an example of male privilege and, yes, is totally sexist, and undermines the whole concept of encouraging responsibility for civility.

Dumbass decision. [Razz]

ETA: @Enoch. Yours is a ridiculous opinion.

[ 04. February 2013, 19:07: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
First they came for the girls, and I said nothing...

No, no, no! First, they came for the girls, and I said, "%!@&$..."

--Tom Clune

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

One more thing--

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Girls swearing is unladylike.

Fuck that.

or, to quote St. Clive:

quote:
Thus, while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally “modest,” proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste). Some of the language which chaste women used in Shakespeare’s time would have been used in the nineteenth century only by a woman completely abandoned.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

Typical sexist trype.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

What a load of fucking bulls.. oh right.

Look, if the poor little dears cannot control their language without women to show them the way, perhaps they should not be allowed into jobs of responsibility. Keep them at home to mind the children and do the wash.

Good Gods, what is wrong with men? Cannot control their penises or mouths.

ETA: @the Link from the OP, not Caissa

[ 04. February 2013, 19:15: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Please. Can you see any good reason that the school shouldn't just get all its students to pledge off swearing for thirty days? And if the girls could do it better than the boys, that might shame the boys into better behavior.

Or it might (to paraphrase the rest of your post) convince them that swearing is the domain of manly men, sailors and soldiers, alpha dogs who just don't care what anyone thinks. So of COURSE girls shouldn't swear. That's OUR job.

It's just a rhetorical, linguistic version of the little five year old boys I see who storm up to little girls in the building block area and snatch toys out their hands-- "girls don't play Legos!"

Yeah, only because the preschool mafia won't let them.

I would be kicked out of that school so fast...

[ 04. February 2013, 19:15: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

lilBuddha:

quote:
Good Gods, what is wrong with men? Cannot control their penises or mouths.

And ironically, they are the ones who get to run the RCC.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
lilBuddha:
quote:
Good Gods, what is wrong with men? Cannot control their penises or mouths.
And ironically, they are the ones who get to run the RCC.

If a priest utters a curse word while saying the Words of Institution because he stubs his toes on the altar by accident, does that render the Sacrament invalid?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
It's just a rhetorical, linguistic version of the little five year old boys I see who storm up to little girls in the building block area and snatch toys out their hands-- "girls don't play Legos!"

Yeah, only because the preschool mafia won't let them.

I would be kicked out of that school so fast...

Ah hah, so that's the reason behind the gurlie pinky Lego - so that the girls can play with it without the boys wanting it.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Girls swearing is unladylike. Nobody can disagree with that.

I disagree.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Damn straight. Let girls be girls; they have the rest of their lives in which to be ladies, should they so choose. [Biased]

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

I dislike swearing from males and females and would agree with the school providing they decreed no swearing for boys and girls. However, by their discriminatory stance they are showing that they condone swearing in boys but condemn it in girls.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
It's just a rhetorical, linguistic version of the little five year old boys I see who storm up to little girls in the building block area and snatch toys out their hands-- "girls don't play Legos!"

Yeah, only because the preschool mafia won't let them.

I would be kicked out of that school so fast...
Ah hah, so that's the reason behind the gurlie pinky Lego - so that the girls can play with it without the boys wanting it.

Actually, yeah. By coloring the blocks in a gender-identifying color, the boys don't have to worry about the activities they like suddenly being identified as "girly." Really, we put boys through hell over this stuff.

Here's what really bugs me in the situation I described-- When subbing, I usually back off at first and look to the permanent staff to get an indication of how they handle things before I dive in and start stuff. I'd say when I have seen the above occur, nine out of ten times the teacher on duty will just walk away. Or take the little girl somewhere else.

I never, never, do. I take the toy away (I saw you take that from her hand, so I'm giving it back.) and embrace the teachable moment (All the kids get to use any of the toys we put out, boys or girls.) And guess what? The boys just shrug and go on with what they were doing. We might think they have fragile constitutions, but they don't.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Teachers said they hoped that if the girls focused on cleaning up their speech on campus for a month, their improved manners would take hold and rub off on the boys.

If girls swear, does that make it hard for the boys?

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

This reminds me of what my mom once told me about the Assemblies of God college she attended way back when (60s, I think). They had a curfew for the women only, and offered the logic that once the women were all in their dorms, the men would stay in too, 'cause they'd have nothing to do! [Killing me]

I'm not sure I can add much to the outrage already expressed on this thread, but I think it's important to highlight what Kelly is saying - that this affects boys negatively as much as it does girls. All this dictating of what a person should be, do, or say on the basis of their gender or biological sex is simply oppressive to all of us, as individuals and as humanity as a whole. It may, in many cases, further male privilege, but ultimately that isn't any good for individual men - particularly not for their souls, which one would think a Catholic school ought to care about.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Teachers said they hoped that if the girls focused on cleaning up their speech on campus for a month, their improved manners would take hold and rub off on the boys.
If girls swear, does that make it hard for the boys?

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

The school's use of "taking the pledge" rituals has a history in Catholic education. During the fifties, all the children in my parish church were required to stand up and recite the National Legion of Decency Pledge. (The gist of this was that we opposed immorality in the movies and other places of amusement, would refuse to attend anything condemned by the Legion of Decency, and would try to convince others to boycott such places as well.)

I am skeptical about the usefulness of public pledge rituals. I know that they have meaning for some. But others will pay lip service only, or respond with disrespect or ridicule once they are free to express themselves.

In my case, I remember refusing to recite the words, though I did stand up with the others and hoped no one would notice that my lips weren't moving. I was only 12, but that Sunday morning was the beginning of the end my unquestioning trust in the wisdom of those who led "the one true Church."

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
It may, in many cases, further male privilege, but ultimately that isn't any good for individual men - particularly not for their souls, which one would think a Catholic school ought to care about.

if I were conspiracy minded, I'd say there is a long-term Illuminati/Masonic/Brothers of Anton LeVey -based agenda to deprive men of the fruits of the Spirit, facilitated by supposed "entitlement."

And yeah there are a lot of conservative religious leaders I can think of who seem to care less about what catastrophe might attack a man's soul. but fight tooth and nail for the stupidest little gambits of male privilege.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

One of the local theaters just announced that the next series of plays will imclude Lysistrata. I'm tempted to suggest they set the production in a parochial school.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I would give my opinion, but it would render this thread not work safe.

Firenze, off to blister some paint.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

I never, never, do. I take the toy away (I saw you take that from her hand, so I'm giving it back.) and embrace the teachable moment (All the kids get to use any of the toys we put out, boys or girls.) And guess what? The boys just shrug and go on with what they were doing. We might think they have fragile constitutions, but they don't.

I did exactly the same when I taught infants.

My sons both had dolls and prams and dress up boxes - and still happily wear pink clothes.

My niece is expecting twins and doesn't know their genders. I was really looking forward to buying them clothes butI can't find any gender neutral clothes. The choice is pink pink pink or cars trucks and planes blue blue blue [Mad]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I can't find any gender neutral clothes. The choice is pink pink pink or cars trucks and planes blue blue blue

Buy one of each and wash them together at a high temperature. Sorted.

But yes. It was easier even ten years ago to avoid the blue/pink divide. My two are now at the point where they wear mostly black... [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Billions of blue blistering barnacles! Sexist, yes. Why should girls be made responsible for boys' behaviour?

Noone has yet made the point that if all of these words are in common use, there will be none left for special occasions...

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

If you can get baby clothes in white (if you can't buy them, a couple of washes in bleach could help), you can dye them any other colour you want.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Boogie, there are some clothing companies which sell brightly coloured non-sexist children's clothes on the "Pinkstinks" approved page.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Isn't this being dogmatic in rather a silly way.

Girls swearing is unladylike. Nobody can disagree with that. Boys swearing is ungentlemanly. Nobody can disagree with that either. If getting girls not to swear does mean they can shame boys into not swearing as well, that must be a great idea.

Saying, 'we can't try this because some people might argue it's discriminatory', is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

The sensible test is 'does it work?'. If it does, great. If it doesn't, nobody will know until the school has tried it.

I don't *exactly* disagree with your assertion that swearing is unladylike. I just think that "ladylike" is a concept that has been used over the centuries to hold women back, shame them for making their own decisions, hold them responsible for the behaviour of everyone else and generally make their lives worse. So the question for me is "why are we still teaching girls that 'ladylike' is an important thing to be? What is 'ladylike' doing for those girls, their peers, and the world, to make it a better place?"

It's not a case of "some people might say it's discriminatory". It IS discriminatory. If it does work to stop people from swearing (and I'm not convinced that it will) is that such a massive gain against perpetuating this cultural bullshit?

Swearing is not a bad thing. The careful use of taboo words can enhance language, provided that you get the right context in which to use them. The reason why I don't swear in front of children is that they'll learn the words but they're not mature enough to get the contexts in which saying them is acceptable, so they'll start chucking them out there in inappropriate contexts. But when you start on "young women must not swear" and "young men must not swear in front of girls" you're playing into a longstanding tradition of permanently infantilising women which is extremely problematic for women.

So yeah. All this for possibly reducing the level of swearing in the school. Cutting off a whole other nose to spite a different face. I am absolutely not ladylike - I have too much control of my own life for that. If you think that that is a problem, then it's time to check that male privilege.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

I know the Ship isn't the best place to find an unbiased debate on issues, but does anyone know the feeling of the whole of the female student body at the school rather than just the odd comment?

Are there any women there who think it is a good thing, and are there any women out there who do actually WANT to be "ladylike"?

Shouldn't they have a choice in whether to be "ladylike" or not?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Enoch - someone's hacked your Ship account to talk utter bullshit under your name. You might want to change your password.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I know the Ship isn't the best place to find an unbiased debate on issues, but does anyone know the feeling of the whole of the female student body at the school rather than just the odd comment?

Are there any women there who think it is a good thing, and are there any women out there who do actually WANT to be "ladylike"?

Shouldn't they have a choice in whether to be "ladylike" or not?

Yeah. They can do that by choosing not to swear, if that's how they define "ladylike". Fuck all to do with the school making rules about it and then applying them in a discriminatory manner.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I can't find any gender neutral clothes. The choice is pink pink pink or cars trucks and planes blue blue blue
Buy one of each and wash them together at a high temperature. Sorted.

But yes. It was easier even ten years ago to avoid the blue/pink divide. My two are now at the point where they wear mostly black...

Hey what's wrong with black? (When I open my wardrobe it's like staring into the abyss).

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I know the Ship isn't the best place to find an unbiased debate on issues, but does anyone know the feeling of the whole of the female student body at the school rather than just the odd comment?

Are there any women there who think it is a good thing, and are there any women out there who do actually WANT to be "ladylike"?

Shouldn't they have a choice in whether to be "ladylike" or not?

HELLO?

So why should the school's girls be pressured to be "ladies" but the school's boys should not also pressured to be "gentlemen"? Have you got a good answer for that, one that doesn't involve putting the civility level at Queen of Peace High only on the shoulders of the female students?

And by "unbiased", I think you mean that not enough people agree with you.

[ 05. February 2013, 09:37: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Mind, I thought Deano was better than to come out with the bizarre "I'm not free to be X unless everyone else is forced to be X!" line.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Boogie, there are some clothing companies which sell brightly coloured non-sexist children's clothes on the "Pinkstinks" approved page.

Thank you!

<gets wallet out [Yipee]

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Are there any women there who think it is a good thing, and are there any women out there who do actually WANT to be "ladylike"?

Shouldn't they have a choice in whether to be "ladylike" or not?

Who is depriving them of any choice? They can refrain from swearing right now, as much as they want. No one here has suggested that they ought to pledge to swear whenever they can.

They are not even deprived of the chance to take a pledge to avoid swearing. They can always march out into the playground, and say in a loud voice, "I hereby swear ... oops, I mean, I hereby pledge never to swear." Exactly who is preventing them? It doesn't sound like the teachers at that school would stop them.

The fact that many people here have expressed strong opinions against the pledge has in no way restricted anyone's freedom... unless you are claiming the freedom to live in a world where no one disagrees with you. I'll avoid Godwin's Law by saying "That's the kind of world Stalin wanted."

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
One more thing--
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Girls swearing is unladylike.
Fuck that.

Oh my goodness. You are such a bad girl. [Disappointed]

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
HELLO?

So why should the school's girls be pressured to be "ladies" but the school's boys should not also pressured to be "gentlemen"? Have you got a good answer for that, one that doesn't involve putting the civility level at Queen of Peace High only on the shoulders of the female students?

And by "unbiased", I think you mean that not enough people agree with you.

First up, Karl? Sorry but I don't understand your meaning above.

Second, I was asking whether the whole school's women students were against the idea, or whether the idea appeals to them. I'm wary of taking the odd couple of comments from people, which may not reflect the majority.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I was trying to work out why you thought that girls could only choose "to be ladylike" if there was a rule requiring them all to do do so. If not, then your questioning about the choice to do so is irrelevant.

I don't of course know exactly what all the students feel, but my limited experience of children (having three of them and having been one at a school years ago) indicates that the general attitude to a rule for girls like this not also applied to boys would be likely to be "fuck off and die."

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Second, I was asking whether the whole school's women students were against the idea, or whether the idea appeals to them. I'm wary of taking the odd couple of comments from people, which may not reflect the majority.

What proportion of the female student body do you think would need to agree with this rule for it to be right for it to be compulsory for all girls, whether they agree or not?

And if they all agree, why do they need to have a rule about it anyway?

[ 05. February 2013, 10:46: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Isn't this being dogmatic in rather a silly way.

Girls swearing is unladylike. Nobody can disagree with that. Boys swearing is ungentlemanly. Nobody can disagree with that either. If getting girls not to swear does mean they can shame boys into not swearing as well, that must be a great idea.

Saying, 'we can't try this because some people might argue it's discriminatory', is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

The sensible test is 'does it work?'. If it does, great. If it doesn't, nobody will know until the school has tried it.
I don't *exactly* disagree with your assertion that swearing is unladylike. I just think that "ladylike" is a concept that has been used over the centuries to hold women back, shame them for making their own decisions, hold them responsible for the behaviour of everyone else and generally make their lives worse. So the question for me is "why are we still teaching girls that 'ladylike' is an important thing to be? What is 'ladylike' doing for those girls, their peers, and the world, to make it a better place?"

It's not a case of "some people might say it's discriminatory". It IS discriminatory. If it does work to stop people from swearing (and I'm not convinced that it will) is that such a massive gain against perpetuating this cultural bullshit?

Swearing is not a bad thing. The careful use of taboo words can enhance language, provided that you get the right context in which to use them. The reason why I don't swear in front of children is that they'll learn the words but they're not mature enough to get the contexts in which saying them is acceptable, so they'll start chucking them out there in inappropriate contexts. But when you start on "young women must not swear" and "young men must not swear in front of girls" you're playing into a longstanding tradition of permanently infantilising women which is extremely problematic for women.

So yeah. All this for possibly reducing the level of swearing in the school. Cutting off a whole other nose to spite a different face. I am absolutely not ladylike - I have too much control of my own life for that. If you think that that is a problem, then it's time to check that male privilege.

The school in the OP is stupid and sexist, the whole school body should take the pledge or none at all. A pledge seems like a stupid idea and only likely to increase the amount of swearing anyway and I hate the way it buys into making women responsible for men's behaviour.

I think "ladylike" is getting a bad wrap here though. I don't equate being ladylike with infantalising women, quite the opposite actually I believe that ladies are independent, assertive and educated.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
a bad wrap.

What? Like tuna fish and jam or something? That'd be a really bad wrap.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

deano:

quote:
are there any women out there who do actually WANT to be "ladylike"?

If they do, they haven't thought enough about the implications of the word.

I don't (usually) go around turning the air blue; I dress modestly (at my time of life it's the only sensible option); I try to be polite and considerate. I would, however, be insulted if you called me 'ladylike'.

Either I am a Lady (in either sense of the word) or I am not. 'Ladylike' suggests that you think I am hypocritically aping the behaviour of a higher social class.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

I think "ladylike" is getting a bad wrap here though. I don't equate being ladylike with infantalising women, quite the opposite actually I believe that ladies are independent, assertive and educated.

It is because "ladylike" is different standards for men and women. Standards should instead be applied equally.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Mind, I thought Deano was better than to come out with the bizarre "I'm not free to be X unless everyone else is forced to be X!" line.

Karl - someone's hacked your Ship account to talk utter bullshit under your name. You might want to change your password.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

[Big Grin]

[ 05. February 2013, 13:21: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Girls swearing is unladylike. Nobody can disagree with that. Boys swearing is ungentlemanly. Nobody can disagree with that either.

Yes they fucking can.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Teachers said they hoped that if the girls focused on cleaning up their speech on campus for a month, their improved manners would take hold and rub off on the boys.
If girls swear, does that make it hard for the boys?

Only if it rubs off on them in the right way.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Are there any women there who think it is a good thing, and are there any women out there who do actually WANT to be "ladylike"?

Shouldn't they have a choice in whether to be "ladylike" or not?

Depends what you mean by ladylike. Of what they mean by ladylike. Or what the Catholic school means by ladylike. Are you all in complete agreement?

Personally, I'd settle with being allowed to be humanlike, first and foremost. It's hard enough hoping to be treated like a person without having all kinds of sexist crap piled onto my identity, too.

Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :

It's disappointing that the school in the OP is going against years of tradition in not being the place where most people hone their swearing. I have been known to use the phrase: "You might think I'm a lady, but I swear like a Catholic school girl." Noone misunderstood. [Biased]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

If they're not allowing swearing, are they allowing the girls to use their knees and their left hooks? What about pointed sticks? Or given it's the USA, how about guns?

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
If they're not allowing swearing, are they allowing the girls to use their knees and their left hooks? What about pointed sticks? Or given it's the USA, how about guns?

quote:
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:
It's disappointing that the school in the OP is going against years of tradition in not being the place where most people hone their swearing. I have been known to use the phrase: "You might think I'm a lady, but I swear like a Catholic school girl." Noone misunderstood.

to both of these. And re: ArachnidinElmet's comment, I went to a Baptist high school and played on the volleyball team. For some reason, I still remember a comment I made to a teammate during a game against Immaculate Conception after spending a little time up at the net (I was a setter) - "Their conception may be immaculate, but their mouths sure ain't!"

I've taken up swearing since then my own self, but not to such an extent.

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Hey what's wrong with black? (When I open my wardrobe it's like staring into the abyss).

A kindred spirit!

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
And by "unbiased", I think you mean that not enough people agree with you.

I've noticed over many years that there's this weird assumption by (predominately white male, but not necessarily only them) conservative Christians that there's such a thing as "unbiased," and it usually looks roughly like their own perspective.

Here, though, I suspect (perhaps charitably), deano means looking at the perspective of the girls in question without imposing our own opinions, much like a social scientist would do if evaluating the situation. But he then goes on to insert his own interpretation as most of us do, and can't avoid doing, really.

In my biased opinion, I suppose.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0