Degrees of Misogyny

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Bowser, Nov 13, 2015.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The opening post is from one of "you guys".

    Let's repeat: the word "misogynist" - the supposed namecalling term- is not in the title, is not the word in the dictionary definition posted in the OP, is not the word at issue. It's not the word that "gets a lot of play here".

    There is a reason for that - the other discussions to which the OP referred didn't use the word much either. No one here has been attempting to throw that term around at all, let alone "too liberally". No one attempting to discuss misogyny here has been liberally namecalling people "misogynists".

    The deflection from discussing misogyny to discussing who should be labeled a misogynist is what "you guys" have been attempting, including the opening poster. The motives for that must remain speculation (we can't even ask - even when momentarily frank, self-awareness is not their long suit), but the effect is not: it has impeded discussion of misogyny. It wouldn't have to - in some other world, one could approach misogyny by labeling people misogynists and then seeing what they had in common, as an analytical tactic - but in this one it's a straight drop into bullshit.

    Or as three or four people have pointed out, in various ways:
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    And this is how I feel​

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And you are a talking ape. NO NO I did not mean that as slander or insult, no offense intended! Aside for the mute we are all talking apes, feel better? it's the truth, it's accurate.

    So? the purpose was not to offend but to get laws changed for bettering the world. Unlike yelling names at people, which is only to shame and control outside the law by means of fear and intimidation and popularity, like an ape, specifically the talking kind. Although similar behavior has been observed in chimps, no words are used.

    Wonderfully blatant false dichotomy. It is name calling! You are giving someone a name, a description, accurate or not, you are calling someone a name. The question is why are you naming them, what is the purpose? Is it to label someone with hate, so as to target them for self-righteous counter hate, to demand they shut up or you with what powers you hold or the mob you rally will fuck their shit up, in self-justified violation of human rights?

    Mockery? Are you questioning my sexual preference?

    Yes of course I must avoid being labeled a bigot, but apparently I can't even admit my sexual preference without being believed, now who is the bigot?

    In the way you were using the word, "sport" was being kind, obfuscating the truth, "tribal" is the accurate description.

    So is calling the doctors names do anything here? You keep failing to show cause and effect! Give me a story where:

    1. X does something
    2. Y says that is misogynistic
    3. X stops doing it

    Please lets examine those stories, because they are relevant to the topic at hand.

    Say nothing? really? Massive riots, millions of tweets? Oh I get it, you're equated saying anything as being equal to calling someone a misogynist. Now that is a fallacy titanic! All sorts of things can be said, I above demonstrated a thing that can be said about it, a constructive thing, towards problem solving in a rational, evolved, sentient way. Campaign Zero has it covered, and I think they use the word "racists" once, once in there whole webpage, and not even wasted calling the police racists, calling a policy racist.

    Do you seriously not get the hints? I expected better of you, I really did... OH MY GOD that trump joke awhile back really did go over you head!

    Google "Cologne Germany attacks", now there is an issue of misogyny.

    Yes I better dispel people's perception of me as a bigot supporter, or else they will hurt me, will you call the mob your self, lick your lips in glee as they ripe me apart?

    of course your "Just sayin", not implying threats at all.

    Question: can you call someone an "apartheid"?

    No.

    So can you prove being called homophobes made them not anti-gay?

    Of course not, but making them learn out of fear of violation of their human rights is not the way.

    and... so? Where in there was anyone called a homophobe, a bigot, a misogynist?

    What part of history suggest taking it hard on bigots works? and by hard I mean calling them names, accurate descriptions? You want to call people "accurate descriptions" to get them to conform, it is up to you to prove it works.

    Do you realize how this comes off as a threat? No of course that went over your head. Ok ok fine, you're the boss, please what do I need to do to dispel people's perceptions of my supposed support for bigotry?

    And to everyone else, Tiassa posts are too long, sorry.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I actually addressed that in the post.

    But let's address your question in a clearer way, so as to not confuse you.

    Do you think telling boys that hitting or causing someone pain or harm, and being on the receiving end of pain and harm from a girl is a show of affection setting them up for misogyny and misandry? What kind of message do you think that sends to the child? Do you think telling girls that hitting or causing harm or pain to a boy is sign of affection or being on the receiving end of harm and pain from a boy setting them up for misandry and misogyny? What kind of message does that send that child?

    Why?

    It is a perfect example. How do you think misogyny starts? Let's look at the examples of abuse you have set out:

    And what kind of attitudes do you think all of this starts from?

    Women who are raped and assaulted, are often told, often by their perpetrators and society in general and their communities, that their rapist or abuser really loves them and/or blames them for their own rape and abuse. Where do you think this comes from? Let's look at a rapist who declares love for his wife as he rapes her. Where do you think this comes from?

    Cutting off clitorises is often done to increase the man's pleasure during sex and to ensure fidelity. That is one of the reasons given. But where does this come from? Where does the notion of harm to show love and fidelity and give pleasure to others come from? Certainly, the act itself is misogynistic and it is done to control the woman and her sexual pleasure, but what drives it? Where does this level of misogyny start from and why does it continue to exist?

    You are focusing solely on the bigger pictures, the big head titles that constitutes misogynistic actions towards women. But you are doing so without looking at what drives the attitudes and what drives women to actually accept it.

    You want to know what is real misogyny? It's not just the slicing off their clitorises and raping them.

    Misogyny is the attitude that results in women believing these are necessary actions.

    Female genital mutilation is conducted by women. Usually by women the girl will know and trust, often taken to these women by their own mothers, sisters, aunts and grandmothers. They were brought up to believe that this is what is necessary to please their men and the men in their lives are told that women must suffer this pain to truly belong to them and be theirs.

    So when you declare that children being brought up to believe that harm = love and "like", is not misogynistic, perhaps you should do some research in the harmful practices and crimes committed against women that you declare are true representations of misogyny. And then consider that women are brought up to believe that being harmed is a sign of being loved or liked and then consider how men are also brought up to believe that harming can show love or like, be it with their mates or with the people they are attracted to. And then tell me how that is not misogynistic when you look at what some of these men and women, do when they are adults. Women in Africa are taking their daughters to have their clitorises sliced off. Women in the West are often told that they are to blame if they are raped and that their rapist or abusing spouse really and truly loves them.

    You mean they are harming the women and denying them their rights because they truly adore them?

    Gee..

    "I bet he did it because he really likes you..."..

    See how children are taught that misogyny is a normal state of affairs?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    That's not a description of behavior. Your inability to distinguish description of behavior from namecalling was the exact matter at issue - and you respond by namecalling.
    No, it isn't. You can't call someone a misogyny.
    So within three sentences you have confused calling doctors names with disparaging some of their behavior. What is the brain malfunction that gets you typing "calling doctors names" and then "Y says that is misogynistic", without apparently noticing the disjunction?
    That's illiterate. Notice the difference between the false statement "you are illiterate" and the true statement "confusing accurately descriptive terms of behavior with names of behaving entities is illiterate".
    The entire history of civil rights expansion in the US. Like, for example, the Civil War - where shooting them proved to be an effective tactic - or sending in the National Guard with armor and rifles to clear their axhandles and asses out of the schoolhouse doors, or dismissing them from their jobs as judges and policemen and TV pitchmen, or suing them for big sums of money over their treatment of people with contempt, and so forth.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2016
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    The Agent of Death

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    One of the reasons I used to hem and haw on FGM was that my first experience with the concept was, in fact, at university, and Jomo Kenyatta's Facing Mount Kenya does, in fact, include a defense of the practice as something white, Euro-Christian heritage should not judge. It is, actually, a fairly deft defense, but, also daft; sometimes it just takes a while to figure out that latter. It just didn't come up in my society much until it started to. Watching the discourse in motion, with my side―the one I had fallen into according to my introduction to the subject―having exactly nothing in defense of this cultural tradition except the assertion that it is cultural tradition, pretty much made the point. Still, it took longer than it should have.

    I mention this unpleasant aspect of my own history because Kenyatta also recalls the myth behind underlying the tradition for one Kenyan tribe. The general sketch is that when the gods created the world they entrusted it to women's guidance, but the women became decadent and irresponsible, so the gods transferred that authority to men, who are more responsible, and remain in charge.

    Yes, really.

    † † †​

    And now, a mansplanation aside. I know if we search the archives here, we can find parts of my own transition on the subject; I know at some point I offered Kenyatta in defense of FGM in a discussion. If I don't search for it right now, quite frankly it's because I really don't like seeing those old reminders of stupid things I've said. But they do exist.

    The question certainly exists whether I would have undertaken such a perspective had the issue been introduced to my awareness in some other context. To the other, that point only matters, to me at least, in the context of why I believed, accepted, or advocated the point. More generally, it is also an important milestone in my own learning; I am, after all, politically liberal within my society, and liberalism within supremacist presuppositions is not immune to supremacism, such as the American question thirty years ago regarding "women's lib" in the context of marriage.

    And, you know, maybe that part was progressive within our society at the time, but it was also pretty rancid; that is to say, look at how progressive and evolved we men are for finally granting that a wife can have a job, and then that a wife had the right to say no to her husband's sexual advances. See, she's liberated!

    True, this was important, but the functional problem was the constraint defining women as the wives of husbands. Over thirty years later we still find sufficient numbers clinging to such standards that the question of whether or not a woman is married to a man still bears significant influence over our societal regard for the human rights of woman.

    It is strange to consider so severe an act as genital mutilation symptomatic, but that perspective also tells us something. In our American society, for instance, we might not rape our late brother's wife according to Old Testament tradition, but it seems her identity and rights can still be bound up in the question of marrying a man.

    I think people can generally perceive injustice; the question of how to define and describe the workings of any given injustice is important. One not only must learn critical thinking in general, but also how to apply those processes to sublimated cultural bias that is often very difficult to perceive, even more so if those same processes of perception and criticism are overly invested in self. To wit, it's embarrassing to recall the transformation of my outlook regarding FGM because, well, yeah, I did at one point in my life posit a defense of the practice. To the other, it's also important for any number of reasons; there is the obvious testimonial to cultural influences, but it is also, for me, a powerful symbol of critical bias. I had to learn how to think around critical biases. And here's the thing: This bit about "women's lib" in the context of marriage? I mean, it's been what, a month or two since I started dropping that line in on a fairly regular basis? It's actually part of the same process taking place in my life and experience. I couldn't tell you when I "figured it out"; there was no moment of clarity, as such. Or, rather, if I dig back to the first of my recent uses of the line, it isn't that it just happened, but that at some point in these various discussions something occurred to me, sounded pretty much just about right, and then I noticed that it was also new in some way. It was an analogy, and it was as if I was accounting for the specific expression of something I knew for the first time. But in that a-ha! moment, it also occurred to me that this was something new, except it wasn't, and all I can tell you is that at some point in the last thirty years I figured something out, didn't notice, and now I can't tell you how I got from A to B because the line emerges from a later familiarity, not any clarifying moment of transition.

    Unfortunately, I can't give anyone else a pathway through; I haven't figured that part out, yet.

    I choose mansplanation because while people can generally perceive injustice, the challenges of describing its workings creates what we might consider an unknown potential. It's true we Americans, in our society steeped in Judeo-Christian principle, aren't raping our brothers' wives or poisoning our own because we suspect infidelity. But the unknown aspect of that unknown potential one perceives perhaps instinctively also creates fear.

    And this fear is what drives so much of the strangeness we see in discussions such as this thread. It is why some are willing to rail against the mere idea of misogyny, or proposition of rape culture.

    The rhetorical question in re FGM: But where this comes from? I can provide one specific answer to throw in for consideration, but this is also an occasion I can describe what it looks like inside the question. FGM might seem considerably more severe than telling a random woman she's prettier when she's smiiling, but if we dig deep enough, they are both derived from vaguely similar but diverse iterations of a common underlying principle, the appropriate superiority of the masculine over the feminine.

    If the anthropological and historical roots of such principles seem so obscure as to be occulted, what is actually concealing them? It is not as if this heritage has broken and been reborn anew; this is continuous, and runs deep. That unknown potential and seemingly requisite instinctive unease can be sufficient. Some would redefine terms such as to constrict and exclude. This part is easy enough to identify, but much harder to solve, and no, it is not a surprising answer.

    One knows misogyny is wrong. One wishes to present against wrongness. There is an unknown potential at play, though, and that creates fear; the redefinitions to constrict and exclude answer that fear. The point is to shield oneself from even self-indictment.

    This is basic ego defense.

    The determination we see in these discussions is something of a distillation. It is a clumsy demonstration exacerbated by blindness unto itself. A weathered bit here, a tattered scrape there; one becomes a singular conduit for diverse expressions, an exaggerated effect that only compounds that perception of moral indictment.

    The thing is that there is only so much repair we can accomplish for ourselves; we cannot change history, and there are only so many particular apologies to go around.

    The important thing is what comes next.

    Let's go with a straightforward violence metaphor: It is one thing to have beaten someone. You have your reasons, and under certain circumstances they might be legitimate. You can tell us what you want about why it happened. But don't tell us it didn't happen. And here's the part that shouldn't be so tricky: Don't tell us you never did it while you're still doing it.

    And that part, really, I don't see why it's so difficult, except for vested interest.

    But when the proposition comes down to the potential of one's hurt feelings versus the sum of ongoing human damage and its future potential, the answer cannot by any definition be said uncertain.

    The fact of civilized society is an evolutionary outcome. By it our living genetic lineage at least has the possibility of lasting as long as the Universe itself; without it, we will die with the planet if not before. Again, the measure is not uncertain.

    Misogyny is not merely emblematic; it must necessarily end.

    Or, to adapt a phrase: We gotta get out of this place, because it's the last thing we will fail to do.

    And, quite frankly, superstitious fear of moral indictment, while perfectly human, is no good reason for anything.

    And, yes, when we stop and think of the damage we've done, it hurts. My own self-indictment runs far deeper than the embarrassment of having previously advocated on behalf of FGM.

    The first thing is to stop creating damage. The hard part there is that absolute cessation is impossible. But that's the thing; we all do our part. We all carry our stone. And when I drop this or that stone I know that someday I'll find another in my pocket. It will be enough to drop that one, too. The point is to set aside the stones.

    And someday the proposition of civilized society will more or less fulfill itself, or it won't, and to that end, it will still, eventually, cease to matter.

    And for the most part, yes, this is on us, gentlemen. Say whatever you want about the women who take part―pretty much exactly all of them―but remember it is nothing more than we have demanded of them.
     
  9. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Sorry I had a busy week, oh and a I stopped caring.

    Lets me see... ah iceaura
    You mean misogynist. I don't see any reason to argue with you if your going to play these kinds of games. When I says "What part of history suggest taking it hard on bigots works?" am then you disregard the rest of that paragraph to make a straw-man counterarguement, its just game for you.
     
  10. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    No, he didn't.

    OK, let's try it:
    Still works. The edit was for reason of parsimony, I presume, and not for the purpose of "mak(ing) a straw-man counterargument" (not even clear as to how that even makes sense).

    All that, which iceaura detailed above, does clearly entail "name calling"--or more accurately, calling out one's shit via accurate description--as well; he just didn't mention such (I presume) 'cuz it kinda goes without saying. I mean, when shooting persons in the context of war, the reasons for such are typically conveyed beforehand. When dismissing persons in positions of power or influence for their contemptuous behaviors, again,the reasons for doing such are typically spelled out beforehand.

    As I already noted, communication of rationale and intent in such contexts is kinda presumed and goes without saying. Fer fuck's sake, we're not talking about holding up liquor stores here.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No. And you as well as others have been corrected on your continual attempts to replace the one word with the other, for pages of this thread now.

    Or to repeat:
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2016
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Okay ... Cupid?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    "My comics helped me remind myself that there is a person on both sides of the screen, because sometimes I feel like men imagine a pixelated floating vagina with boobs on the receiving end of their messages. It bothered me that so many men felt content with these one-sided conversations — ignoring even my clear message transmitted through silence — as if the idea of 'me' as a sentient being were inconsequential. My comics gave me a space where I could respond and give my input. So in my own way, I collaborated with these dudes. Without them even knowing it, now they've authored feminist comics!"


    It is, sometimes, hard to know where to start. For instance, it seems important to remind that I really don't comprehend the moves and impulses of internet-based dating, but that might or might not be important; certain things seem clear.

    Molly Roth explains the point under one of those straightforward, twenty-first century headlines we will all someday look back on with horror akin to teenage haircuts: "Men send me really weird messages on OKCupid. So I turned them into comics."

    About that ....

    Okay, see, this is where the first question screams to mind: You're aware this is the internet?

    But neither is that helpful. The truth of the matter is that part of what makes internet dating seem such a scary beast is that people act more like they're on the internet than like they're dating. Or courting. Or seeking. Begging. Pleading.

    (Notice me ...?)

    Thus, for instance, the inquiring suitor asks, "imagine u r out at a fetish club ...", and what, really, is anyone supposed to expect?

    u see a coworker who due to his macho chauvinistic attitude you as a woman have had issues with his behavior. he is dressed like a sissy being lead arnd on a leash by a dom women.

    If you noticed it isn't a question, that part―"what wd you do?"―comes in the next panel, but, you know, really.

    Because, well, here's the thing: True, this isn't like walking up to someone on the street at random; this is an internet dating community. Still, though, and even accounting for the idea that, hey, some days it helps to cut to the chase and something, something, filter out the someone, and so on, and so forth, remember that this is one's own priority. That is to say, this is how one wishes to be identified, acquainted, and got-to-known.

    Trying to psychoanalyze the inquiry seems futile, but one starts to wonder if the man on the other end is a half-step shy of going his own way.

    And, you know, there is also this. If these men really are genuinely expressing their priorities, well, fuck, you know, is it really fair to make it into a comic? Because even in the most objectifying persistence against the silence we can find the proverbial frightened little boy who cries at rejection and doesn't understand why nobody likes him. And here I am wondering if Mr. Sissy, over there, is one of those guys I hear from now and then ranting on about how women are all snotty bitches who think they're too good for any man.

    For her part, Roth is more philosophical:

    And sometimes I'm part of the problem, too: I've had moments while swiping away on Tinder when I stop and realize, "These are actual human people who have feelings and thoughts!" Online dating can feel eerily like online shopping, where people are turned into commodities.

    Still, I don't regret dating online: I've met some incredible people whom I wouldn't have met otherwise. And even the bad experiences occasionally have silver linings. I've pushed back on men who said presumptuous things to me online, and sometimes they engaged with thoughtful questions and responses. It's unfortunate that people don't realize they are acting in a way that is misogynist or aggressive, but it's a step in the right direction if some are willing to have a conversation about it.

    Making and posting my comics gives me hope, too. People of all genders — mostly cis and trans women, but men, too — responded overwhelmingly well. Women told me they'd gotten similar messages, and men couldn't believe that anyone would say this kind of thing. (I mean, I couldn't believe some of them myself.) But it got the conversation going. Maybe the future of courtship isn't all so bleak.

    Or maybe it is. Like I said, I really don't get internet dating.

    And, you know, maybe philosophical isn't the right word. Reflective? I'm tempted to do the pathos joke, here.

    But neither am I going to psychoanalyze that subsequent conversation. Mr. Sissy gets his attention, just not quite how he hoped.

    Hey, I have a question for you: What do 'Gilmore Girls', rump pounding, sovereignty, and her nether regions have to do with one another?

    Internet dating.

    Oh, and two cents' worth of free advice: It occurs to mind that objectification works better if you imagine other people as things they might actually want to be. The downside, of course, is that this is less fun for you. Accustom thyself.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Roth, Molly. "Men send me really weird messages on OKCupid. So I turned them into comics." Vox. 23 February 2016. Vox.com. 23 February 2016. http://bit.ly/1oA2lSC
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Of Course They Did

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    We ought not be surprised:

    As Hillary Clinton gave her Tuesday night victory speech in Florida, male political pundits responded to her big night by tweeting about how they think she’s shouting too much and not smiling enough.

    (Rupar↱)

    With examples from Howard Kurtz, Brit Hume, Joe Scarborough, and Glenn Thrush, we learn two important things about punditry:

    (1) A woman can never be good enough.

    (2) Nothing says "masculine insecurity" like not being able to think of anything other than telling a woman to smile.​

    Oh, right:

    (3) There is no Rule 3.

    (4) A woman might be smart enough to sweep Mini-Tuesday, but she still needs a man to tell her how to act.​

    No, seriously, they might as well have just tweeted, "Satisfy me."

    It is already known that female public speakers, public figures, and authority figures are viewed by audiences in a negative light. It would help, greatly, if Messrs. Kurtz, Hume, Scarborough, and Thrush, among others, stopped behaving like two-bit stereotypes.

    Think about it, though. To the one, the Democrats are putting on a pretty good show this year. To the other, Bernie Sanders' supporters rightly tout their disruption of what was expected to be an inevitability; media criticism, however, and many of those Sanders supporters, are smug, knocking Hillary Clinton for not being smart enough to take the Socialist seriously. And on what turns out to be a fairly consequential night, answering Sanders' upset in Michigan with wins in Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri―even against some analysts expectations―with her opponent postured to carry this fight all the way into June and even trying to predict seven wins in the next eight states, we're supposed to knock her for not lightening up, for being too serious.

    It's true, her path to the nomination just brightened considerably, but between taking the race seriously but not too seriously, not wearing this or that jacket, not "shouting" so much, and pretty much every other stock, I-can't-think-of-a-real-criticism heap of steaming, sexist excrement she faces, it's almost enough to look forward to what these flaccid pundits come up with for a screw-faced, fist-banging, she-can't-be-good-enough-for-me-to-deal-with-the-fact-that-she's-president tantrum.

    And on a personal note, I've spent my life trying to learn how to live in my phenotype; I would greatly appreciate it if so many of my fellow men would stop trying so hard to prove that masculinity is nothing more than a venereal disease.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Image note: Am I smiling enough? ― "Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks during an election night event at the Palm Beach County Convention Center in West Palm Beach, Florida, Tuesday, 15 March 2016." (Detail of photo by Lynne Sladky/AP Photo)​

    Rupar, Aaron. "Hillary Clinton Won Big Tuesday. Male Pundits Responded With These Sexist Tweets." ThinkProgress. 15 March 2016. ThinkProgress.org. 16 March 2016. http://bit.ly/1U6IkRp
     
  14. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    I haven't read all the thread. Someone may have mentioned this. I've noted occasional instances on some forums - possibly this one - where those accusing others of misogyny have many of the apparent characteristics of misandrists. It's interesting that this rarely if ever gets mentioned. If you took a poll I suspect that the number of people who did not even know the word misandry would exceed those who did not know the word misogyny by a substantial margin. I find these observations interesting. If you don't you can just ignore them, but you'll never get those seven seconds back.
     
  15. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    That is just horseshit.

    Men don't like it that they can't just say whatever they like without people reacting poorly to it. It's not misandry to no longer be free from people reacting to the bullshit you say.
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Nobody likes that, actually. That's evident both here and in society at large.
     
  17. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Excuse me. Did I accuse you of being a misandrist? No.

    It does not strike you as worthy of remark that many are branded misogynists, yet we rarely do we hear other branded as misandrists? And the simple act of making this comment generates an immediate emotional reaction. I have not spoken in defense of misogyny. I have just noted the fact that the allied issue of misandry is rarely discussed. And I still find that interesting .

    So, would you explain to me what in my post was bullshit? I made a number of statements. I stand by each of them. Perhaps you would care to reread my post, carefully, and identify for my benefit what is bullshit and what makes it so.
     
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    To the one, you should. To the other, I wouldn't blame you if you didn't.

    This is one of several threads the topic poster has opened in recent months in which the purpose is to rehash old bigotry. I call it square zero; that is, when dragging things back to square one just isn't enough. It's an effort to reframe a discussion in which certain arguments have been slowly losing influence over the course of decades.

    The whole point of the thread was to give cover to misogyny. One of the fun things you'll witness here is that the topic post offers a dictionary definition while denouncing misogyny as a word "tossed around too liberally", but the thread didn't really find its rhythm until nearly a month in when people started trying to parse that definition and functionally disqualify it for in order to protect themselves from questions of misogyny.

    It gets so out of hand that―well, you know that rhetorical form where we're never supposed to put two things someone says together because it's unfair to hold them accountable for their words?―there actually comes a point at which, if we attend the whole of a member's argument, he effectively argues that a woman does not have the right to leave the house without being sexually harassed.

    This is one of several threads by the topic poster in which his purpose seemed to be to push back against human rights discussions by restarting them with new presuppositions. The couple contemporaneous threads on homosexuals were just a right-wing temper tantrum reviving old Nazi comparisons, but there is also a rape culture thread that was for no better purpose than advocating against women↗. The thing about that thread is there was already a discussion of rape culture afoot, but our neighbor apparently wanted to redefine the term in order to attack a straw man; the framework of the former discussion wasn't suitable for (1) asking people what rape culture is, (2) deliberately refusing their responses, and (3) promoting anti-woman propaganda. Naturally, the word "misogyny" arose; eleven days later, we got this thread.

    And somewhere in all this, the topic starter repeatedly refuses to explicitly acknowledge the humanity and human rights of women.

    It's an interesting thread, though. We even get to the inevitable bit about how the appropriate address for any bigotry is to coddle the bigots, thus resulting in the magical abatement of bigotry.

    This thread is all that and a bag of day-old, forgotten-in-the-back-seat fast food french fries.
     
  19. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Your post was horseshit, not bullshit, because your post buys into the bullshit that men should be able to say anything they want without ever being questioned, that when ever someone calls a man on their shit, they are necessarily in the wrong.
     
  20. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    I suggest you have serious reading comprehension difficulties. If that is what you got out of my post then you were reading it with a prejudice to find such horseshit wherever you look.

    I find your attack to be emotional, offensive, misguided, ignorant and hurtful. For the record:
    1. I do not believe any person, male or female, should be able to say anything they want without being questioned.
    2. I note that the reaction to just such a gentle questioning here has generated from you the aforementioned emotional, offensive, misguided and hurtful response.
    3. If someone calls anyone, male or female, on their shit it would behove us to analyse carefully first whether or not it is shit.
    3. In your case it appears to be shit. That's not because you are a male. It's not because you are female. It's because your last couple of posts have been - did I mention this before - emotional, offensive, misguided and hurtful shit.
     
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,608
    That's because the reigning hegemony doesn't get to play victim on top of having power over the subjugated group. Just like there is no White History Month or Straight Pride parades. While there are probably many who hate men, one cannot easily fault those who do if they have been oppressed or discriminated against by the same.
     
  22. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Look, dude, I just call it like I see it.

    You are going around continuing the mythology that men are hard done by because people point out when they say things that demean women.
    Of course you do; you have to dismiss genuine criticisms of men and you can't believe that you would ever get sucked into systematic oppression.
    You didn't ask a question, you put tried to discredit claims about misogyny. You are part of the problem.
    Just not you, I guess.
    RiiiiiIIIIiiiight.
     
  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    It might be worth pointing out that when someone walks in with an overworn trope, regardless of whether that's what they intended to do, others notice.

    So, for the record, what you've got is a thread opened for the purpose of promoting misogyny, and someone walking in late saying, "Hey, I haven't read the thread, but have you thought of this?" when that's not what's going on, here.

    Seriously, whether you intended to or not, you just did one of the things that misogynists do in these discussions, which is argue an overworn trope from a posture of ignorance.

    That's the general pretense of this misogynistically-fashioned thread, as well as another about rape culture by the same topic poster; it's one of the dangers of walking in and postulating from ignorance. And it does, in fact, open a new cycle of the same old dispute, where you innocently do something grotesquely offensive and then get offended because other people are offended.

    So please understand: Regardless of what you think you intend, you are exactly on script.
     

Share This Page