derogatory fly names...

[Fast Action Freddie]

Anybody dumb enough to blatantly ignore social conventions of decency generally loses their place in their communities.

Or even their job, even if they are the POTUS.

I’m all for holding people accountable for being that destructively dumb.

 

[Paul_]

Yes. Actually doing something is always better.

Here’s a 35 piece lake fly assortment-

View attachment 273363

Donate $50 to this organization https://washingtonoutdoorwomen.org/ (or one similar) and I’ll mail them off to you.

A donation has been made and the flies are spoken for.
Thanks

 

[dustinchromers]

You’re missing the point, and that’s the second time you’ve done so in this thread, you doing alright?

I wasn’t like minded before reading the article, I’m still not 100% like minded, but I have been convinced to think a little differently, and to ask others to do so as well. So it may not have been 100% effective for all as an approach, but when ever is an argument 100% effective?

You can’t argue the effect on bringing the issue to the forefront of a lot more minds.

A good writer identifies their purpose before putting pen to paper. If that purpose is to ask for consideration and change there are several strategies. The call out is the most underdeveloped and ineffective. Diplomacy and appealing to other's sensibilities and intellect is perhaps less salacious but far more effective. Another route is to ask the question of the reader, garner consideration. It's less emotional and isn't perceived as an attack or outright insult. Your little digs you like to inject here and there are a hallmark of an underdeveloped and ineffective communication strategy whether you realize it or not. Condencenders, screamers, repeaters, and insulters are ineffective in debate especially in the face of ideological opposition and often serve to harden the resolve of those they oppose. They simply lack the tools of logic and creativity to craft rhetoric that doesn't parrot some other activist's oversimplified word soup. You will find them correcting grammar, giving a "fuck you", rearranging deck chairs on their sinking argument, and yes getting in their little digs. They are intellectually weak by nature and seem to champion this approach as they regale weakness in general as a virtue. If one is to be a gadfly they must bring a sharp mind, a linguistic sword of precision, and open ears to hear another's argument. You cannot prevail over your opponent without an understanding of their position and vulnerable points in their armor to plunge said sword. You cannot make calculated assaults on their logic without study. A Samurai never became a Shogun without understanding their enemy intimately. Your veiled digs belie weakness and fall ineffective to the ground against any reasonably armored adversary. Your students may be more pliable and impressionable but a more developed opponent who's longer lived requires a far different strategy especially when they've extended decorum of engagement thus far. I'm not saying you are guilty of all this above but where the shoe fits.........

 

[hookedonthefly]

A good writer identifies their purpose before putting pen to paper. If that purpose is to ask for consideration and change there are several strategies. The call out is the most underdeveloped and ineffective. Diplomacy and appealing to other's sensibilities and intellect is perhaps less salacious but far more effective. Another route is to ask the question of the reader, garner consideration. It's less emotional and isn't perceived as an attack or outright insult. Your little digs you like to inject here and there are a hallmark of an underdeveloped and ineffective communication strategy whether you realize it or not. Condencenders, screamers, repeaters, and insulters are ineffective in debate especially in the face of ideological opposition and often serve to harden the resolve of those they oppose. They simply lack the tools of logic and creativity to craft rhetoric that doesn't parrot some other activist's oversimplified word soup. You will find them correcting grammar, giving a "fuck you", rearranging deck chairs on their sinking argument, and yes getting in their little digs. They are intellectually weak by nature and seem to champion this approach as they regale weakness in general as a virtue. If one is to be a gadfly they must bring a sharp mind, a linguistic sword of precision, and open ears to hear another's argument. You cannot prevail over your opponent without an understanding of their position and vulnerable points in their armor to plunge said sword. You cannot make calculated assaults on their logic without study. A Samurai never became a Shogun without understanding their enemy intimately. Your veiled digs belie weakness and fall ineffective to the ground against any reasonably armored adversary. Your students may be more pliable and impressionable but a more developed opponent who's longer lived requires a far different strategy especially when they've extended decorum of engagement thus far. I'm not saying you are guilty of all this above but where the shoe fits.........

Sun Tzu...”The Art of War”. Ha! Very Best and Peace, Ed

 

[Fast Action Freddie]

That's not quite an accurate description of my opinion. I strongly dislike the use of terms that are derogatory (Dirty Hoh) or objectifying (T & A Bunker.) They reflect poorly on people who use those names, and make many women uncomfortable.
The original article suggested that sexualized fly names support a culture of male sexual violence. That's pretty hyperbolic, but if I had to guess, I'd say the author has women in his life who have been traumatized by sexual violence, and who may react more strongly and negatively to terms like Sex Dungeon. While I personally do not, they are not, unfortunately, an insignificant percentage of women.
Nor are the VERY few women who post here representative of women in general. I could put together a list of 1000 local women who are interested in fly fishing (based on the # from a local women's FF Facebook group) but there are maybe a half dozen who post on WFF. My personal interactions tell me that there are many women who would love to fly fish, but no way in hell are they going to deal with the good ol boys network to get there. Walking into a flyshop to see 8 guys and a bin full of Galloup-named flies is off-putting, period. For most of them, the feeling of not being welcomed or respected makes it simply not worth pursuing. If you have a couple of outdoor hobbies that interest you, but the path to one is strewn with dogshit, you're probably going to pick the other one.
They are certainly not wading into this discussion, when they have their own forums.

This thread and posts like this have helped me to see things from a perspective other than my own.

Don’t get me wrong- I love humor especially edgy humor weird humor cutting humor even non-PC humor that can be done in a way that means no and causes no harm.

But those kind of fly names are not funny — they are sophomoric juvenile stupid at best. While I’ve never been offended by them (because I tuned them out), they did nothing for me and I wouldn’t want to be associated with them . Kind of like if there was a Poopsnake Fly or Bloody Diarrhea Fly or some other scattological name — just 5th grade stuff, not cool or funny (or are they? Discuss. )

Point is - I always just tuned them out - maybe my subconscious did an eye roll “that’s stupid “ - but not much more. That said I can now see how it can be much more to a female fisher and unfortunately turn people away from this “community“. Certainly not my preference for this community and doesn’t do anything for progress in society.

I’m not offended - I just don’t want to offend. or repel people from a community that I’m part of, or accept disrespect (or worse) as normalized.

yes I have daughters etc - but even if I didn't I’d still want to be part of a society that is open and fair and respectful to all. And uphold humor to a standard that is actually humorous (post 5th grade)

 

[quilbilly]

it’s sophomoric juvenile stupid

Tells you what the fly designers and fly namers think will help them sell their products...5th grade humor.

Lol

I guess that's how the market is viewed.

 

[LilCutts]

I have an 18 year old daughter who goes to college in California. She caused ZERO problems for her mother and me her whole life (which is something my parents weren't afforded.) You should hear the music she listens to. I can't believe BLM hasn't gone bananas about how often the N word is used. Each song is like Richard Pryor's Greatest Hits. If you're worried about raunchy fly names, you were the person arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic after it hit the i
g.
BTW- the Barely Legal is my favorite streamer by far (recommended by Kelly in his shop). I never even thought about it being raunchy- it was just a name of the fly he recommended.

there's a million cocktail names that are every bit as dopey as some of the fly names listed

Fuzzy nipple
Sex on a beach
Harvey Wallbanger
Buttery Nipple

They still sell, but probably not to the people who would buy a sex dungeon.

Not to mention the Red Headed Slut, quite a popular cocktail shot.

 

[LilCutts]

I was going google some these names because I don't know what they mean...then I remembered I was on the prime's computer....probably would have gotten a visit from HR!

If we didn't fish with lures we could use the fly's real name like....mayfly, caddis...wouldn't that be novel?

What fun would that be? I like my PMDs, BWOs, green drakes and let’s not forget the doodle bug, which represents nothing. Speaking of the Doodle...I’ve heard a couple stories about the origin of that name, one being that a lady wearing lipstick was smoking a cigarette, threw it in the water and a trout took it. Does anybody know where the name came from? It is a truly ridiculous fly. And a ridiculous story.

 

[Fast Action Freddie]

Tells you what the fly designers and fly namers think will help them sell their products...5th grade humor.

Lol

I guess that's how the market is viewed.

Not because that’s what the market really is but because of the marketers inability to “read the room”. We all know “that guy” that doesn’t get it that what he (or she) finds fun or funny nobody else in current company does (not because PC issues or sensitivity... more that the shit is stupid and not funny).

believe it or not I may have on one or two occasions put something out there where others didn’t see the (brilliant) humor of it. It’s even happened on this very forum.

 

[quilbilly]

Just like all the goofy names for drinks, the marketing towards 20 something males is always laden with serial innuendo/terms for pretty much any product, as much as the company thinks they can get away with without tarnishing their brand to the point where they lose customers.

This is actually a science, companies don't take marketing campaigns forwards without testing, researching, and testing again.
Sex sells...big data has probably shown that it sells even better than they thought.
It probably shows 20 something males surf twice as much porn on the web as they do fishing forums...
Shocking I know.


Fly designers and namers likely know this, as does everyone else, it's not like it's a secret.

 

[Irafly]

A good writer identifies their purpose before putting pen to paper. If that purpose is to ask for consideration and change there are several strategies. The call out is the most underdeveloped and ineffective. Diplomacy and appealing to other's sensibilities and intellect is perhaps less salacious but far more effective. Another route is to ask the question of the reader, garner consideration. It's less emotional and isn't perceived as an attack or outright insult. Your little digs you like to inject here and there are a hallmark of an underdeveloped and ineffective communication strategy whether you realize it or not. Condencenders, screamers, repeaters, and insulters are ineffective in debate especially in the face of ideological opposition and often serve to harden the resolve of those they oppose. They simply lack the tools of logic and creativity to craft rhetoric that doesn't parrot some other activist's oversimplified word soup. You will find them correcting grammar, giving a "fuck you", rearranging deck chairs on their sinking argument, and yes getting in their little digs. They are intellectually weak by nature and seem to champion this approach as they regale weakness in general as a virtue. If one is to be a gadfly they must bring a sharp mind, a linguistic sword of precision, and open ears to hear another's argument. You cannot prevail over your opponent without an understanding of their position and vulnerable points in their armor to plunge said sword. You cannot make calculated assaults on their logic without study. A Samurai never became a Shogun without understanding their enemy intimately. Your veiled digs belie weakness and fall ineffective to the ground against any reasonably armored adversary. Your students may be more pliable and impressionable but a more developed opponent who's longer lived requires a far different strategy especially when they've extended decorum of engagement thus far. I'm not saying you are guilty of all this above but where the shoe fits.........

Dustin, there is no arguing your skill at a turn of phrase, you are obviously well read and talented in that realm. You do well in taking others words and syncing them with your own.

But again, you seem to have missed the point and in many places in your argument, you act in a hypocritical manner. Possibly you did so purposely to make a point.

Let’s start from the beginning of your argument. You start with a strong opinion that is not based in fact. You claim that, “A good writer identifies their purpose before putting pen to paper.” As you likely well know, there are many pathways to creating writing that is appreciated by different audiences. Your statement is also assuming that the author didn’t have a purpose before he started, based only on your own personal critique of the technique.

My point is that the author did succeed in creating change and in opening a conversation. You argue that the authors technique is underdeveloped and ineffective. This is an opinion, yet you state it as fact. There is a lot of potentially well deserved arrogance in your opinion, but it is still an opinion. Maybe other methods work better for some, but to claim his method as ineffective is simply not true. I proved that with stating my own change, several pages of this thread are also an example, and April Vokey is opening up a further dialogue in a podcast as well. So you personally may not like the technique, but...

I’m well aware of my communication style and I use it purposely. Now is this where you yourself are attempting to make a point through your hypocrisy? You literally make a little dig on me while telling me that little digs are an underdeveloped communication strategy. If so, I’ll disagree, I think your little digs and interjections in this and other threads are quite effective, wether you realize it or not. Oh, I saw the other digs as well, I don’t think you were attempting to keep them subtle. But then again maybe you thought you were being clever. But you binging up the “fuck you” really demonstrates once again your lack of understanding, even though I’ve mapped it out for you. At this point based on your intellectual prowess I’m left with assuming willful ignorance on your part.

My argument at the beginning wasn’t aimed at any reasonably armored adversary, why bring my best tools against the weak? Even the Samurai changed their approach based on their opponent. They were not always aiming a killing blow, some were direct to train and instruct. Those who I was approaching showed no decorum of engagement my response hit the mark perfectly where and how I intended, so much so that adversaries I don’t even know were there felt the blow.

The shoe doesn’t fit, but if you add more pairs, some of them do as they fit you as well.

 

[dustinchromers]

Dustin, there is no arguing your skill at a turn of phrase, you are obviously well read and talented in that realm. You do well in taking others words and syncing them with your own.

But again, you seem to have missed the point and in many places in your argument, you act in a hypocritical manner. Possibly you did so purposely to make a point.

Let’s start from the beginning of your argument. You start with a strong opinion that is not based in fact. You claim that, “A good writer identifies their purpose before putting pen to paper.” As you likely well know, there are many pathways to creating writing that is appreciated by different audiences. Your statement is also assuming that the author didn’t have a purpose before he started, based only on your own personal critique of the technique.

My point is that the author did succeed in creating change and in opening a conversation. You argue that the authors technique is underdeveloped and ineffective. This is an opinion, yet you state it as fact. There is a lot of potentially well deserved arrogance in your opinion, but it is still an opinion. Maybe other methods work better for some, but to claim his method as ineffective is simply not true. I proved that with stating my own change, several pages of this thread are also an example, and April Vokey is opening up a further dialogue in a podcast as well. So you personally may not like the technique, but...

I’m well aware of my communication style and I use it purposely. Now is this where you yourself are attempting to make a point through your hypocrisy? You literally make a little dig on me while telling me that little digs are an underdeveloped communication strategy. If so, I’ll disagree, I think your little digs and interjections in this and other threads are quite effective, wether you realize it or not. Oh, I saw the other digs as well, I don’t think you were attempting to keep them subtle. But then again maybe you thought you were being clever. But you binging up the “fuck you” really demonstrates once again your lack of understanding, even though I’ve mapped it out for you. At this point based on your intellectual prowess I’m left with assuming willful ignorance on your part.

My argument at the beginning wasn’t aimed at any reasonably armored adversary, why bring my best tools against the weak? Even the Samurai changed their approach based on their opponent. They were not always aiming a killing blow, some were direct to train and instruct. Those who I was approaching showed no decorum of engagement my response hit the mark perfectly where and how I intended, so much so that adversaries I don’t even know were there felt the blow.

The shoe doesn’t fit, but if you add more pairs, some of them do as they fit you as well.

That's more like it.

 

[Irafly]

View attachment 273396

That's more like it.

You knew I had it in me, it just took your little digs to get me to admit it

 

[Fast Action Freddie]

My point is that the author did succeed in creating change and in opening a conversation.

Agree. If there is any question about this - go read all the comments. I'd call it quite successful at providing a starting point, bringing something out into the light ... and it revealed that many others had been keeping something inside that was causing discomfort or harm. so the approach was quite successful at opening a conversation. which is a starting point for creating change. @dustinchromers may feel that it was mostly a simplistic call and response to a bunch of like-minded people. but the point is this - those people were mostly silent and now it's known how many there are and why this is something that warrants attention. my take is that the author understood his purpose quite clearly before starting the writing.

 

[DimeBrite]

A good writer identifies their purpose before putting pen to paper. If that purpose is to ask for consideration and change there are several strategies. The call out is the most underdeveloped and ineffective. Diplomacy and appealing to other's sensibilities and intellect is perhaps less salacious but far more effective. Another route is to ask the question of the reader, garner consideration. It's less emotional and isn't perceived as an attack or outright insult. Your little digs you like to inject here and there are a hallmark of an underdeveloped and ineffective communication strategy whether you realize it or not. Condencenders, screamers, repeaters, and insulters are ineffective in debate especially in the face of ideological opposition and often serve to harden the resolve of those they oppose. They simply lack the tools of logic and creativity to craft rhetoric that doesn't parrot some other activist's oversimplified word soup. You will find them correcting grammar, giving a "fuck you", rearranging deck chairs on their sinking argument, and yes getting in their little digs. They are intellectually weak by nature and seem to champion this approach as they regale weakness in general as a virtue. If one is to be a gadfly they must bring a sharp mind, a linguistic sword of precision, and open ears to hear another's argument. You cannot prevail over your opponent without an understanding of their position and vulnerable points in their armor to plunge said sword. You cannot make calculated assaults on their logic without study. A Samurai never became a Shogun without understanding their enemy intimately. Your veiled digs belie weakness and fall ineffective to the ground against any reasonably armored adversary. Your students may be more pliable and impressionable but a more developed opponent who's longer lived requires a far different strategy especially when they've extended decorum of engagement thus far. I'm not saying you are guilty of all this above but where the shoe fits.........

Hear, Hear!