VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 05:19:24 11/19/05 Sat
Author: manwitch
Subject: Re: Actually it does
In reply to: Sunshine 's message, "Actually it does" on 12:57:57 11/17/05 Thu

"the Buffy "woman" quote but always found that a bit strange coming from a female hero in a feminist oriented show."

Well, your definition may well be correct. While it would probably be logical to consult a dictionary, I will follow my heart and not do so.

In my worldview, pejorative is giving or acquiring a depreciatory connotation. It suggests that the pejorative word or words are made worse (I believe it is from the latin pejorare -- to make worse or to depreciate) by the given context.

So for example, in the sentence "joe is bad," I would understand it to be overkill to the point of inaccuracy to say that bad was used in a pejorative sense, in spite of the fact that it has negative connotations. There's no depreciatory adjustment to the meaning of the word. It is this adjustment that allows for the argument, one that I find to a degree questionable, that pejoratives have the characteristic to which you refer, namely that they slander something other than the subject of the given context.

When Larry Bird, after the Celtic's 30 point loss in game 3 of the '84 Finals, criticized his team's heart and gutless effort by saying "We played like a bunch of women tonight," he was using "women" in a pejorative sense. The negative context of what he was saying imparted to "women" a negative context that it otherwise would not have. It made "women" worse by the context, slandering women as well as the intended target of the derogation, the Celtics.

In the given Buffy quote, "woman" is not used pejoratively. The insult to Wesley neither requires nor suggests a depreciation of woman. The point is not that all women can do is scream (its all Wesley can do is scream) nor that Wesley screams badly because he screams like a woman. There is no worsening of the meaning of "woman" due to the statements negative connotations towards Wesley. The point Buffy is making is in her view Wesley has nothing to offer in the pending battle with the Mayor, but the context is also a longer running power struggle between Wesley and Buffy, so Buffy states her view in terms that will be the most disempowering and immasculating for Wesley. Man tries to claim power over Buffy, Buffy takes power, Man has none. Not totally at odds with a female hero in a feminist show.

My statement was about Wesley's journey. The negative sense of the statement comes from the suggestion that Wesley's character didn't end up where the writer and directors probably wanted it. It was meant to be a silly comment poking fun at Wesley's look in the later years, the unshaven face, the styling clothes and a certain degree of sullen posturing that made him look on occasion like a catalog model. I described that catalog model as gay because I am bothered by what I see as a certain hyper-masculinization of the character and sought to suggest that I was not fooled by that implausible hyper-masculinity. It probably would have been better to just say that. Devaluing "gay" was not my intent, the contrast between gay and the effort to masculinize the character was. But the more I think about it, the more I think perhaps you are right on that one, even using my narrower definition of pejorative. I don't believe "gay" is inherently at odds with "masculine." I believe the characterization "gay" is at odds with the masculinity I feel they were attempting to portray. But I can see the potential depreciatory effect on the term. That certainly wasn't my intent, but I apologize for it and will avoid such comments in the future.

On the head/heart issue, we're probably not really all that far apart. I think I put faulty logic and poor reason in the logic and reason column, whereas perhaps you do not. I agree that there is certainly a lack of good logic and reason, a lack that I no doubt contribute to, as my posts in this thread attest.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.