A Glimpse into my mind

I'm just totally impressed with the phrase "crotch droppings".

From:

I wasn't gonna say anything, but let me balance that off.

Not a phrase I like.

EKat's journal, I have no issue with her using it her.

Some of us find it offensive.

It's an opinion thing.

From:

So you say you have "no issue" with her using the phrase in her own locked journal and I repeated it in the same journal, so then why did you feel the need to comment?

From:

This.

From:

Ug. Yes, I bit. You know what they say about arguing on the Internet...

From:

It's all good, darling. Eunice Kennedy Shriver and I will be cheering you on as you cross the finish line. In the end we're all a little challenged in our own ways and we each do the best we can.

Although, I didn't see your question as an argument but as a request for clarification.

From:

Thank you my dear. I was being a little baiting though. Just a little bit.

From:

*grins* that's why I waited a bit before responding.

From:

What can I say? I like to poke the sleeping bears.

Or badgers (usually with spoons).

From:

I'll find you a titanium spork.

From:

And I will be happy to clarify.

I don't want to argue, either. Fair question.

This is what I said originally in repsonse to you:

"I wasn't gonna say anything, but let me balance that off."

Basically, I felt that if someone was going to praise that wording, I thought I should point out that for some of us, it's offensive.

I suppose I could have sent Ekat a private note, but I wasn't going to comment at all. (Ekat, not that big a deal. Your LJ. If you want me to leave, I will).

Words can be very hurtful at times.

It's a sensitive button with me.

Should I have just let your comment go?

Yeah, OK. I probably should have.

From:

So by commenting do you feel that you've accomplished something tangible?

From:

Something got "accomplished."

Was it something positive. Unsure.

As I said, in retrospect, I probably should not have posted.

At the time, I felt I needed too.

And that's how the internets work sometimes.

From:

baronessekat.livejournal.com

I can't claim credit for the phrase. I will not name who gave it to me so as to save them from the hysteria that has risen up here and FB over my use of the phrase.

But I think it fits to a certain grouping of the small humans.

There are children/kids - who in my opinion have been raised by parents who give a damn and/or have at least decent manners and social interaction abilities.

Then there are those other creatures who did not have proper social manners trained, have bad attitudes and the like and deserve the phrase. Mostly it is a reflection on the parentage rather than the individual but still.

From:

Amen; as a parent myself, I say "preach on Sista!"

From:

Oh, and who the hell are these people having a coronary over the phrase? You're getting it on FB too? What he hell is wrong with people?

From:

Coronary? No.

Objection? Yes.

From:

Objection? Why? Given the context, usage, and location the phrase is entirely appropriate. The use of colorful and creative language is a wonderful way to express many different emotions. Of course there is a time and a place, but I would think that a locked, Live Journal post would be acceptable.

From:

I don't have to engage my parental vanity filters to know that my kids aren't the problem. However, I am also loathe to engage those same parental vanities to say my kids are so much better than all the rest. Because, well, vigilance is the only constant in parenting, and such vanities come back to bite you on the ass when your kid screws up or has a bad day.

I am echoing the sentiment expressed elsewhere that if one wants respect, then one should show it.

Further, the post is not flocked.

From:

OK, yes, I do see that the post was not locked, my mistake. Granted; that was a fairly insignificant part of the point I was making. The post may not be locked, but one would still have to go looking for it.

Secondly; was it the phrase itself or the sentiment of the post that set you off? If the latter is the case then we have an entirely different argument.

From:

I think it more problematic that I see "having a coronary" and "set you off" being used to characterize a simple and basic objection to the phrase "crotch droppings" in reference to children who just happened to be being kids. If finding the term basically offensive is being inferred as some kind of hysteria or rage, then it really is a comprehension problem for the reader who is choosing to make those characterizations.

You imply that the use of the term is somehow harmless, and that we're all just really talking about someone -else's- kids, but in my experience those sentiments are applied in a pretty fickle and completely changeable fashion. It also seems to be a term that not everyone agreed with or reacted well to--and the dissenters are not being the least bit unreasonable to point out that it is offensive at some level. There is no doubt in my mind that offense was intended at some level, because human beings tend to use vulgarities when they want to diminish and offend others. :shrug:

Edited Date: 2009-06-24 05:06 pm (UTC)

From:

You are reading WAY too much into this and putting too much stock in a phrase. She was venting in her own Live Journal post. If she called a specific child a "crotch dropping" to their face, then maybe you would have a point. Since that is not the case, it just makes those who felt the need to post their objections come across as hyper-sensitive and argumentative.

Also, I have referred to my own son as a "little shithead". Does that make me a bad person and a bad parent?

From:

No, I think I'm being characterized as being the bad guy for saying "that's not a very nice thing to say". The inference of being "hyper-sensitive and argumentative" is still made on the part of the reader. :shrug: That reader would be, in this particular case, -you-.

However, as I have no investment in your relationship with your children, unless they are interacting with me personally or people I am associated with, I'll leave the question of what you call your son and why to be settled by the karma it generates, good or bad, down the road.

From:

No, you were implying that Ekat is disrespectful because of her choice of words in her own journal. I take umbrage with that. Furthermore, please re-read what I wrote about being "hyper-sensitive and argumentative"; it had nothing to do with my interpretation of your words. Feeling the need to write a rebuking comment to someone's personal post is being hyper-sensitive and argumentative. It is her journal, she can write whatever she wants.

Oh, and the question about my son and I was hypothetical based on the discussion we are having. I was not asking for a critique of my personal parenting choices.

From:

No, you were implying that Ekat is disrespectful because of her choice of words in her own journal.

No implication whatsoever, I believe that I expressed my reservations quite clearly.

But yanno? That "in her own journal" thing kinda flies out the window when it appears on Facebook, too. Clearly, as the post was addressed to all parents everywhere, and pleads with them to instruct their children to behave with more decorum around dogs, despite the whole 'crotch droppings' business.

And I get the complaint, even. Nothing worse than an out of control child of an adult with boundary issues.

Furthermore, please re-read what I wrote about being "hyper-sensitive and argumentative"; it had nothing to do with my interpretation of your words.

Then why hang it out there, unless you wanted to pass judgment on something that was said? LOL. Do you read anything that you actually write? I find the phrases: "hyper-sensitive and argumentative", "having a coronary" and "set you off" coming from you and not me, so obviously -someone- here is not seeing where that particular problem stems from.

Feeling the need to write a rebuking comment to someone's personal post is being hyper-sensitive and argumentative. It is her journal, she can write whatever she wants.

I never said not to write it. I only expressed my reservations with the use of the term 'crotch droppings', and never actually argued against the rest of what the OP was saying. Wasn't the only person who expressed reservations about it, and I don't have any regret in doing so.

Oh, and the question about my son and I was hypothetical based on the discussion we are having. I was not asking for a critique of my personal parenting choices.

I said, "However, as I have no investment in your relationship with your children, unless they are interacting with me personally or people I am associated with, I'll leave the question of what you call your son and why to be settled by the karma it generates, good or bad, down the road." I see no critique there, unless you're being hypersensitive and argumentative yourself. ;)

Have a great day, though.

From:

Quote: I am echoing the sentiment expressed elsewhere that if one wants respect, then one should show it. Yes. In a round-about and preachy manner you are calling her disrespectful.

Quote: I'll leave the question of what you call your son and why to be settled by the karma it generates, good or bad, down the road. Yes. In a round-about and preachy manner you are commenting on my parenting. My guess is you were being intentionally obtuse about my intentions when asking that question so you could take it out of the context of our discussion to get in a personal dig.

What does Facebook have to do with anything? It makes no difference where she posted it, you personally had to make the choice to read it.

Then why hang it out there, unless you wanted to pass judgment on something that was said? LOL... I am honestly having a hard time parsing this section of your reply. What did I hang out there looking for comments?

From:

the-nita.livejournal.com

simple and basic objection to the phrase "crotch droppings" in reference to children who just happened to be being kids

Interesting. Didn't read it that way. Read it as the attitude of the parents - that their kids were of as little impact on their daily lives as other waste matter from their bodies. Not a judgement on the kid, but on the parent.

YMCV.

From:

chamfron.livejournal.com

I have no skin in this discussion, nor do I have any desire to engage in a debate as to the merits of any phrases the OP chooses to write. What I would like to point out is that, at least from my perspective, I fail to see any disrespect in the use of such a generic aspersion. I would contend that disrespect can only be displayed when directed at a specific individual or even a collective. In this case the OP's only reference to a collective was by exclusion. Essentially this is a very loose "if the shoe fits" type of reference. This hardly constitutes disrespect in my book, FWIW.

From:

There are children/kids - who in my opinion have been raised by parents who give a damn and/or have at least decent manners and social interaction abilities.

The problem with the phrase, as I see it, is that it ultimately applies any child that one may have a bad moment with, regardless of whether that moment was an aberration for anyone involved or not. If any combination of you, the dog, or the kid is having an off day, the kid gets smeared with a vulgarity. Not especially fair to the kid, even if they lack decorum and discipline.

The phrase also stands a very good chance of putting off the parents of the kids with "at least decent manners and social interaction abilities", because they either don't want to offend, or don't want imagine that their kids are being called ugly names behind their backs.

Just my two cents.

From:

EKat: Please accept my apologies for my role in this.

I should have responded privately rather than here.

I have heard the phrase before. In the past.

Anyway, did I mention that i agree that kids should always get parental and owner permission before the "nice doggie" part starts?

I do agree with you.

From:

maricelt.livejournal.com

This.
Totally.

My own "boys" are a bit larger than yours. (by a factor of 16, I think) But it drives me up a wall when the kids are all running up to them screaming. I have been known to put Red in a Stay and put myself between him and the kids with a Drill Sargent's "STOP".

The adults don't get it. They think I'm being selfish somehow, and maybe I am... but if your "precious" over stimulates my dog, or pounces on him, or hurts him I may well be looking at him having a seizure. Also, if he swings his head around excitedly with his mouth open, I can guarantee you some kid is going to get hit with his teeth. And then the kid says "He bit me" And the parent goes ballistic, and I'm looking at defending my dog for being excited by the *damn* *undisciplined* kid.

ok... that was a bit more ranty than I thought. I obviously have some opinions on that.

From:

chamfron.livejournal.com

Well hell. First, my dog is bigger than most at 110# of mostly muscle, and my 3 year old son is... well... let's just say that I like to let him explore...a lot, so he is what some might call fearless. I often joke that I actually have two baby gorillas, one in an American Bulldog suit and the other in a little boy suit. Added to that the fact that he lives on a farm with two good sized horses. So yeah, we have to have the discussion with almost every new encounter that not every dog/cat/horse/ferret/warthog/wild turkey/ whatever is as nice and friendly as that to which he's accustomed. Really this is just parenting 101. But every non-parent dog owner has the exact same complaint and has a pocket full of horror stories to back it up... and I imagine a lot of non-dog owning parents will continue to fail to see what the fuss is all about. As a dog-owning parent I can say with certainty that although I warn my boy that the cute little bunny rabbit in the corner looks all fuzzy and "pettable", he should still be careful and ask permission because it could potentially tear his throat out. I can also state with certainty that I have no frakking idea if any of what I'm telling him will stick in his head if I turn away for a moment. But I think it really boils down to the parents response to the situation. If my child runs up to a strange dog without warning and the owner of that dog aggressively intervenes then my first response is to apologize for the inconvenience and use the experience as a teaching moment for my child. Case closed. However, if the dog owner should decide to press the issue by attempting to turn it into a "teaching moment" for me... well then we're gonna have a problem.

Oh, and it's Ekat's eldge, she gets to choose the language, don't like it... don't read it.

Edited Date: 2009-06-24 06:20 pm (UTC)

From:

English is such a cool language, isn't it?

It appears to me that there have been two main interpretations of this bit here:

"I have lost count the number of times on my walks with Grimm how many crotch droppings (as opposed to the children with manners) don't bother to ask me if they can pet my dog before the come running up, screaming "Puppy!" and shoving their hand into his face."

The first seems to go like this:

"I have lost count the number of times on my walks with Grimm how many children who are crotch droppings (as opposed to the children with manners) don't bother to ask me if they can pet my dog before the come running up, screaming "Puppy!" and shoving their hand into his face."

The second seems to go like this:

"I have lost count the number of times on my walks with Grimm how many children who are behaving like crotch droppings (as opposed to the children with manners) don't bother to ask me if they can pet my dog before the come running up, screaming "Puppy!" and shoving their hand into his face."

In the end, I think the issue is that smart dog owners know that if a child damages itself on a dog while trying to touch it, it is always going to be seen as the dog owner's fault. No matter how vigilant dog custodians and child custodians are, dogs and kids are going to tangle. We do our best to try our best all the time, and even so things go awry.

This highlights the simple frustration of dealing with those who don't even try and don't recognize that there is something to be trying. It is moments of great frustration that inspire us to use strong language to define the exact element of a situation that is most frustrating. "Sunday drivers, misogynist pigs, the gubment, crackheads, whiners" are all terms that we use to describe nameless faceless individuals whose behavior is causing us internal conflict and emotional upset.

Sometimes, when we find that another person's choice of verbiage sparks upset within us, the best thing we can do is inquire privately why that person chose that specific term. Sometimes we can shifting around the "to be" and "behaving like" around in our minds and find that the only way to really find insult in the verbiage is through our own interpretation.

What a wonderful language, and so much more for me to learn. Thank you all who have shared your opinions here and on FB, it's been very educational.

From:

chamfron.livejournal.com

Hot damn you're eloquent :-)

From:

Thank you, dear.

From:

Your post was eloquent.

Your scenarios made a lot of difference in perception.

I am not sure how to approach what I want to say without sounding silly, but I will try.

This is *not* about the specific phrase, but rather about words that scan as hateful/hurtful to me.

1. As I have grown older, I have responded more quickly to offensive words. I think people are, in general, too mean to each other, but hey, that's me. And I have been known to use the phrase "douchebaggery" on occasion.

2. The part that might sound silly from the straight guy. The folks here who know me (including you, dicea) know that I have been involved with Gay Straight Alliances .

That happened about three years after I became a teacher. Language and its connotations became more and more important to me.

I had to fight the "nigger" battle with Black kids who *insisted* they could use it with other Black kids. I let them know it was not acceptable to me as a teacher or in school.

(I know we're not in school, that's just how it developed).

I have seen first hand how hate speech can hurt kids. (To the point of one of them blowing her head off with a shot gun rather than hearingt he word 'lezbo' one more time."

I know these are two different things.

But my past experience has sensitized me.

I hope that's coherent.

Edited Date: 2009-06-24 07:57 pm (UTC)

From:

As the original post was a rant about the specific behaviors of a group of people against whom the OP has no recourse, I fail to see how the post can be in any way more "hate speech" than any snark post on any snark community.

No word can have any meaning except in context. In the context of personal blog rant and in the context of the post as it is written, I don't think this qualifies as hate speech.

At the same time, I do not think that friends discussing personal emotional reactions to specific words qualifies as language policing.

I find these two elements to be quite hope inspiring.

From:

Yes, the original context of the post -- as I said I agree -- got caught up in something entirely different (a word in the post).

I hate that.

It's common on EK List and drives me nuts.

I am struggling a bit with the "context" concept. I need to think about that.

As far as "language policing," I certainly agree that's not wh's happening here.

I just had an epiphany. It may be unrelated, It might explain more of my language thoughts.

I used to use the word "mook" as a synonym for "goob" or "average guy."

I used it in Sharc one day, in that conetxt and one of my camp mates, who is Black, asked me if I knew what it meant.

I didn't and felt pretty dumb when he said it was a derivative of "monkey" and used as slang for Black people.

I use goob now.

From:

It might be worth your while to take some time to look into the etymology of both "mook" and "goob".

From:

Why did I have a funny feeling you were gonna say something about "goob?"

;)

From:

Hi Liam;

Thank you for the clairification. I do understand your positions and I agree with most of them. In this context (Ekat's LJ) though your initial comment came off as "finger wagging" and not productive.

She wasn't hurling insults or using obvious "hate speech" and you made the choice to be offended by her choice of words and felt the need to respond.

So I guess my question to you is should Ekat now worry about offending you (or anyone) with her choice of words?

From: