Back to the female dog (No longer SHIPping, we hope)

[msbeadsley]

The Sergeant Majorette wrote:

> The above questions are rhetorical. My heart has been broken by the 
> hostility I have encountered here, and I am forthwith returning to 
> my home planet. Earthlings. Bah, humbug.

Shall we remaining here have three cheers? I think not. Actually, I 
don't believe you are/she is gone; I would be somewhat appalled if it 
were so (and would be surprised; I expect curiosity to keep you/her 
around at least in "lurk mode" long enough to read responses). And so 
I am going to respond to the questions. I am going to engage you/her 
in this particular instance and play according to the rules presented 
as currently in play.
 
> 1. Why is "bitch" negative and "curmudgeon" cute?

Because the language which we speak in common says so. The meanings 
exist; look them up. Unfortunately, it is not nearly so acceptable, 
endearing, "cute," to be a mature woman with a prickly attitude in 
our culture as it is for a man. The expectation is that a man is 
going to have violence in his nature and that a woman is going to 
lean toward a more nurturing personality, which is why "curmudgeon" 
is a noun which technically applies only to men. I am not saying that 
this is right, or even an attitude of which members of the culture 
are aware. It exists, however. I am referring only to semantics and 
not to the culture on the list, of course. As well, "curmudgeon" 
implies a soft spot, an irony, somewhere in that expectation of male 
toughness; "bitch" is without similar saving grace, as female 
toughness has not been accepted in our culture long enough to be 
deserving of a fond irony.

> 2. Are you arguing that there are no neurotic gay people?

The argument had nothing to do with a debate around the existence or 
not of gay neurotic people. The argument had to do with equating one 
with the other: gay = neurotic or neurotic = gay. While I see a sad 
tendency for gays to be bent out of shape by a culture that until 
recently listed homosexuality as a pathological condition, I am 
absolutely opposed to any viewpoint which tries to assert that there 
is *any* inherent connection between homosexuality and neurosis.

> 3. Didn't I say that I *do* completely understand why people are 
offended?

Allow me to quote:

> I totally understand why some people took offense. It's *my* 
> neurosis that I'm not chastened in the least. I'm schizoid (not 
> schizophrenic, ok? It means I don't relate well to my fellow human 
> beings) and proud of it.

What this said to me is that you are aware you offend people and have 
made the determination that the parts of the world with which you 
interact must tolerate you or remake itself in such a way which 
allows you to fit it/fit in. That is not very realistic. Any hint of 
supplication on your part would have gone a far ways to earning you 
some empathy here, I think. But you offered offense, self-
justification and defiance of the consequences instead of expressing 
the slightest willingness to compromise or be instructed. I 
understand that it galls you to bend even a fraction (and a bit of 
the terror which I think is at the heart of why this is so, a sort of 
emotional agoraphobia); but at the heart of meaningful, civilized  
social discourse is the necessity to entertain another's point of 
view and some part of the state of mind and heart which go with it, 
and that requires some flexibility, whether natural or assumed.

> 4. Why is it "hostile" to speculate that someone might be gay?

I don't think it is. I perceive that you rewrote yourself 
retroactively once reactions started coming in. I read what you said 
as an assertion that whatever emotional damage Harry had suffered 
left him with no choice but to pursue homosexual relations, as if 
same sex love were something bought more cheaply, perhaps off 
the "irregulars" table at Kmart.

Sandy, who would much prefer to see you/her capable of being a bit 
chastened than utterly absent