If one thinks the PM is selling the country out and one wishes to use a prostitution analogy to criticize her action, then the correct epithet to use would be "pimp," because she's accused of selling the country, not herself. That the critic chose "whore" indicates an unthinking sexist attitude because the PM is a woman.

T

A nice try but a prostitute can sell herself without using a pimp but since she wasn't called a whore or prostitute your comment is rather pointless.

You're stuck on Semantics. She was compared to a whore and pronounced worse than one. How is this remotely less offensive than actually calling her one?

My point was—and perhaps you missed it despite your attention to language precision—that this analogy was employed because the PM is a woman. That is what makes it misogynistic and unacceptable.

This gutter level personal attack harms real political debate. It's an ugly distraction from legitimate criticism of her actual policies.

T

I think the article is not rambling nonsense at all. It is very clear that misogyny and sexism is alive and well in the country.

Criticizing Yingluck for doing a crap job. Fine.

Calling her a slut or worse than a whore. Not cool.

If a man would be PM, would people call him a cokcsucker or butt-punsher if he did something people did not like?

Unlikely. Bully, murderer, thief, etc. Is something else.

Don't waste your time. HIS mistakes are his. HE'S stupid - sure he is! But what's misogyny? Do not send me to Google - my IP is TOT

If one thinks the PM is selling the country out and one wishes to use a prostitution analogy to criticize her action, then the correct epithet to use would be "pimp," because she's accused of selling the country, not herself. That the critic chose "whore" indicates an unthinking sexist attitude because the PM is a woman.

T

A nice try but a prostitute can sell herself without using a pimp but since she wasn't called a whore or prostitute your comment is rather pointless.

You're stuck on Semantics. She was compared to a whore and pronounced worse than one. How is this remotely less offensive than actually calling her one?

My point was—and perhaps you missed it despite your attention to language precision—that this analogy was employed because the PM is a woman. That is what makes it misogynistic and unacceptable.

This gutter level personal attack harms real political debate. It's an ugly distraction from legitimate criticism of her actual policies.

T

The criticism was that she's selling the country. That IS criticism of her "actual policies".

If one thinks the PM is selling the country out and one wishes to use a prostitution analogy to criticize her action, then the correct epithet to use would be "pimp," because she's accused of selling the country, not herself. That the critic chose "whore" indicates an unthinking sexist attitude because the PM is a woman.

T

A nice try but a prostitute can sell herself without using a pimp but since she wasn't called a whore or prostitute your comment is rather pointless.

You're stuck on Semantics. She was compared to a whore and pronounced worse than one. How is this remotely less offensive than actually calling her one?

My point was—and perhaps you missed it despite your attention to language precision—that this analogy was employed because the PM is a woman. That is what makes it misogynistic and unacceptable.

This gutter level personal attack harms real political debate. It's an ugly distraction from legitimate criticism of her actual policies.

T

The criticism was that she's selling the country. That IS criticism of her "actual policies".

By all means criticize her policies, but why wrap it in misogyny? Why the labored comparison to a whore? Labored because it isn't even apt; the only thing a whore sells is herself. The reason for the use of this ugly analogy is simple: it is because she is a woman.

T

By all means criticize her policies, but why wrap it in misogyny? Why the labored comparison to a whore? Labored because it isn't even apt; the only thing a whore sells is herself. The reason for the use of this ugly analogy is simple: it is because she is a woman.

T

Do a search on "Obama is a whore". Last I checked, besides what a lot of people might say, he isn't a woman.

By all means criticize her policies, but why wrap it in misogyny? Why the labored comparison to a whore? Labored because it isn't even apt; the only thing a whore sells is herself. The reason for the use of this ugly analogy is simple: it is because she is a woman.T

Do a search on "Obama is a whore". Last I checked, besides what a lot of people might say, he isn't a woman.

Well I guess if they can call that Kenyan communist nazi atheist Muslim a whore, then it must be ok to use the term on Yingluck. But I get your point. Granted, in America the term is used to insult both sexes, though, still mostly women (seven out of ten results on your suggested search term actually refer to Michelle Obama). In Thailand, and especially in the Thai language, it is invariably used to insult women, so I maintain that my point stands.

T