I think you're taking RJ's comments much too personally. Thirty-five years ago, this topic was a pretty popular topic of conversation everywhere.
If you're younger than 35, or close to that age, then you have absolutely no idea where he's coming from and ... as it wasn't directed at you personally, really oughtn't take offense to it.
My age has nothing to do with whether I ought or ought not take offence. If anything, it is
that attitude which is from the past. What next? People under 35 should be seen, but not heard? I am considered an adult in every country you care to name, and that should be enough to allow me my opinion.
I also do not think it's really for you to tell me what I should or should not be offended by, if you are not personally offended, good for you.
To clarify, if I understand your position, you are happy with the status quo we have here because you have seen far worse (this coming from the perspective of a military person, I imagine you must have!)... it sounds to me like: "In my day, we couldn't afford shoes, so we went barefoot." Hence the princess terminology you used. That's all well and good, but wouldn't it be nice to have things be a little less negative than you've been used to? Inverted sexism can be just as much a problem as plain old sexism.
I have all due sympathy for what your went through 35 years ago, but don't get in the way of those engaged in continuing to make
positive changes in the present. And I do not think the willy nilly use of "bitch" and "tramp" are very defensible if we want a positive, healthy environment. I do believe someone who works in an environment where people are trained to kill would have a very high threshold when it comes to things like this. No doubt, I myself might have your same reactions were the situations reversed. We are all products of our environment after all.
Having said all that, I doubt I can get through to someone who thinks generations after herself consider themselves "princesses" because they have not experienced treatment as harsh as you once did. Maybe you think women now have it
too good? Some of the words here (not only from you) have had that undertone, a resentful undertone. Still, you are entitled to resent as much as you want.
RJ's comment was not directed at me personally, but to all those who hold an opposing opinion, of which I am one. I responded to him because his voice in green holds some weight in this forum. If he thinks it is perfectly fine to call women "bitch" and "tramp", then compare those who disagree to his own "repressed" religious family of 35 years ago, then I may, and do have a problem with that.
I feel,
RJ, given his position, should have an ability to at the very least respect an opposing view, or at best, genuinely attempt to see it from their point of view, even though he may still disagree. He should not be trying to silence people through poorly veiled insults, patronisation, and off-hand dismissal. Then again, why shouldn't he feel superior enough to patronise? He is in that very lucky group who suffer least, white, middle-class, middle-aged male.
