I’ve had some recent runins with “addlepated” people…that sounds pretty good…

And whatever happened to “addlepated” ?

I’m not saying that it’s not used in ways that are gender-neutral just saying that the use of the word in not so gender-neutral ways still exists in society.

“My uterus is currently sitting on my shoulder and whispering stuff in my ear. You’d be looney, too. So crazy you’d think that women should have equal rights. ”

LMFAO

dude, i don’t know what more either i or the others here can offer you in the way of information concerning this matter. you keep saying you don’t know even though you’ve been pointed in numerous directions for finding out more… at this point, your lack of knowledge is really your own problem.

But even if the term is used mostly in reference to women, that does not imply that when people use it, they intend it to be derogatory to women in general.

actually, i think in a world fundamentally structured by gender inequality that any time a word is used in exclusive (or near-exclusive) reference to women that one needs to be more than a little sensitive toward potential misogyny or sexist meaning. and, yes, maybe lots of folk use it “innocently”. but, you know? where i grew up the terms “fag” & “queer” were used often as synonyms for “stupid” or “uncool” - sure, it was “innocent” (i doubt many of the kids even knew what homosexuality was where i grew up) but that doesn’t mean one would sit back, let it happen, and say, “oh well, they don’t mean anything by it,” right? another good example would be the widespread use of the term “lame” (of which i am often guilty). yeah, folks don’t mean nothing by it, but it still conveys the idea that disability represents something to be shunned, disparaged, etc.

still, i would like to acknowledge that you apologized earlier and stated your intent to refrain from using it the future. i think that’s a good strategy. i mean, you may still privately feel that the word isn’t loaded with the baggage we’re identifying, but insofar as you know others do think this & will potentially regard the use as a means of expressing misogynistic intent, then the best thing is to simply find a different word. i mean, the English language has an extraordinary vocabulary, right? there’s dozens of terms that can adequately & even eloquently convey the idea that you think someone’s acting crazy.

Not trying to be mean here, but it seems more like you’re trying to prove something because you don’t want to admit it might have been hasty to use the word.

Jam argued that I did not take into account the history of the term. I did. I’m focusing on whether the term has the same meaning it did before. I argued that the meaning of the term has evolved and is no longer linked to female irrationality.

But even if the term is used mostly in reference to women, that does not imply that when people use it, they intend it to be derogatory to women in general. Meaning that when it is used to describe a man the term is not being employed to equate him with female irrationality; the idea is to call him irrational period. I believe this is true because the dictionary definition does not mention female irrationality and because people in general have no idea that the term is based on that idea. Therefore it is my belief (I admit it’s only a belief) that majority of the people who use the term are using it in a gender neutral way.

sorry! i probably wasn’t being that clear. i just wanted to emphasize the fact that the Greeks were total nutters when it came to female biology (actually they were pretty wack about male biology too, but that’s another story).

but yes, misogynistic as well! in fact, the whole idea of hysteria (which literally means “wombiness”) is essentially that women’s bodies can & will betray them at any moment.

actually i think that probably has to do with the fact that “anti-lefty” discrimination is not exactly what most would consider a serious sociopolitical problem.

I have not done a statistical study but I find it unlikely that the vast majority of the people who use the term know its history.

again, this fact does not make the history disappear.

For the same reason, I also do not know if the term is most commonly applied to women.

then i’d say consider yourself informed. if you’d like, i can provide more sources of studies & works on hysteria in addition to the bibliography i linked to earlier. there’s a rich & enlightening history waiting to be explored if you’re interested.

Only if their “rational” diagnosis weren’t so misogynistic! I don’t see where you are seeing rationality… ?

i know you didn’t mean to Q Grrl, but that description almost makes the Greek concept of hysteria seem vaguely rational, as if it was an actual medical condition they diagnosed. but, as with so much of Greek philosophy, their ideas concerning women’s bodies were… how shall i put it? loonytoony? wackojacko?

the Greek concept of hysteria actually postulated the idea that the womb could get antsy & detach itself & go wandering about in the body. yes, you heard me: a womb bouncing about in the body like a pinball. yes, loonytoony. Plato actually thought it was a little critter, an “animal within an animal”. the cure? for many Greeks the cure was to get the woman pregnant. why? because wombs go wandering precisely because they’re not, so to speak, “getting any”

better still is the Victorian cure for hysteria: induce “hysterical paroxysms” in the suffering patient. what’s that, you ask? well, that’s when you take your poor ailing hysterical wife to the doctor & he gives her a handjob. yes, a handjob. vibrators were actually invented during this period & were touted for their “therapeutic” & “restorative” qualities.

ah, Western civilization….

Main Entry: hys·te·ria
Pronunciation: his-’ter-E-&, -’tir-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from English hysteric, adjective, from Latin hystericus, from Greek hysterikos, from hystera womb; from the Greek notion that hysteria was peculiar to women and caused by disturbances of the uterus

People’s stated intent for using a word can be very different than the actual intent. You meant the word to denotate someone you think was being irrational, the word very much connotates a female-specific irrationality.

“Mass hysteria”:

Here’s a link on my city’s most infamous incident which brought up the words, “mass hysteria” primarily b/c almost all the people affected were women. Why women? Not because we are hysterical, fainting creatures prone to suggestion, but b/c most of the employees, nurses, respiratory techs and even doctors were women. The EMTs were men but they were never exposed to any chemical reaction that could have made them sick.

http://www.totse.com/en/politics/green_planet/toxlady.html

Okay, I knew a woman(Maureen Welch) who was one of those who succumbed to “hysteria” and she was sick. Physically sick, to the point where she passed out, revived, went home, experienced breathing problems, came in and was hospitalized, and she was one of the lucky ones. Two of the women, a doctor and nurse, experienced necrosis in their joints, which is not hysteria-based. Actually, what might have happened is that DSMO may have been used as part of a remedy by Ramirez, reacted with oxygen she received from the EMTs, when blood was withdrawn, she had a crystal substance in her blood sample, and that through several reactions, she might have been emitting something akin to nerve gas. The symptoms the hospital employees suffered matched those on a list of exposure to nerve gas. But that’s one theory, and was never proven. What’s sad is that the poor woman, with advanced cervical cancer was treated like a “thing” even after death, especially during the autopsy, when the building they did the procedure in, was far more dangerous than she ever could be. And she died b/c of what was going on around her in the ER. Two of the employees could no longer work at their jobs, because of their illnesses.

If this involved men, hysteria would never, ever been imagined, let alone speculated and stated at some points as FACT. Never…so I bristle at the “hysteria” or “hysterical” words even when I use them, which I do, but not as often as I used to.

I initially argued that using “hysterical” as a description is not sexism per se. I compared it to “greedy” a term that was used for ages to describe Jews and created a stereotype that led to massive persecution, including genocide. Nevertheless, I feel that using “greedy” even in the context of describing a Jew would not constitute anti-Semitism absent an intention to manifest an anti-Semitic belief. My argument therefore was that although historically “greedy” was used in association with anti-Semitic stereotypes but can be used neutrally today, so can “hysterical.”

The most potent response to this argument is that etymologically “hysterical” has its basis in pretty sordid stereotypes against women, while greedy is not historically derivative from anti-Semitic stereotypes. The argument then continues that using the term perpetuates the implicit sexism that led to the existence of the term in the first place. Therefore a term such as ” Jew down” is more comparable because it originated because of prevalent stereotypes against Jews. I believe this is Sally’s argument.

I disagree. The fact that the origin of the word is sexist does not make the usage of the word sexist. For example, the word “sinister” is linked to the word “left.” In fact the word “left”? itself had bad connotations, usually referring to weaker or lamer. Even today dictionaries still define sinister as left. Of course, left-handedness was considered a weakness and in many cases left-handed individuals were forced to learn to use their right hand.

Yet, I’ve never heard anyone complain that calling someone sinister is a slur and perpetuates anti-lefty discrimination. Why? Because practically no one knows the basis of the word and therefore it has taken on a whole different meaning. But why does that matter if the basis of the word is discriminatory?

Words have meaning. They are usually a manifestation of a person’s intent. If a person uses a word assuming it has a specific meaning, we can readily assume that person intended that meaning. If someone tells you not to buy that watch because it looks “hot,” I doubt you’ll think she is concerned that you’ll burn yourself. Obviously that was not the person’s intention. Do we care if the real dictionary meaning of the word and its etymology have nothing to do with “stolen?” Of course not.

Amanda argues that “hysterical” has its basis in only women’s irrational behavior. I do not believe that argument changes my point. Terms have taken on new meanings throughout history and how it was defined in the past really has no bearing on its use at this point.

I have not done a statistical study but I find it unlikely that the vast majority of the people who use the term know its history. For the same reason, I also do not know if the term is most commonly applied to women. But what I do know is that the term can be used to mean “an excessive or uncontrollable display of emotion” without any relation to men or women.

For this reason I still believe “greedy” and “hysterical” are analogous. I can’t imagine someone using “Jew down” without harboring anti-Semitic notions. The term is prima facie anti-Semitic because of how it’s used and the connection between Jews and bargaining. If I’m wrong, I’d throw it in with “greedy” and “hysterical” and require more to consider its use anti-Semitic.

“Shyster” to me is similar. The truth is, at one time, when I heard the term, I immediately thought the person was using it as a slur. However, I’ve seen it used in neutral contexts and the dictionary definitions do not allude to anything anti-Semitic. If the term is used in a neutral context and the dictionaries consider it neutral, perhaps it is not as much a slur as I originally thought.

I’d like to conclude by apologizing again, and I’d like to see what people think about this.