Degrees of Misogyny

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

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,320
    The closest thing I ever heard to a "rape joke" was some damned fool's defense back in the late 50s or early 60s. The damned fool said: "I hadda rape her your honor, you shoulda seen what she was wearing".
    Amazingly enough, many people seemed to agree with "blaming the victim".
    Crazy runs deep in this society, and seemingly has done so for quite some time.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,137
    Yes, many people did then, and there are still enough that in the twenty-first century it means occaional acquittals or, if you're the Weld County, Colorado prosecutor, refusing to prosecute a confessed rape. And his reason? Well, he told the vicitm it was her fault, and when that emerged, he tried to cover himself by saying that the good people of Weld County, Colorado were incapable of convicting a confessed rape.

    But I wanted to take that first part and examine it for a moment.

    You've seen people meet such claims with skepticism, to say the least; as our neghbor Parmalee↗ explained to someone in another thread:

    But consider this statement, along with a few other curious claims I recall--like having never heard a rape joke, or having seen only four or five rapes ever depicted in film and television. Lest you watch television and film only perhaps once or twice a year, and you simply do not read any news stories, and you live in the middle of nowhere and engage with no other persons or your "culture" in any substantive manner, I'm not buying it. I don't think anyone is buying this.

    Incidentally, I do, in fact, live in the middle of nowhere and I only interact (if you can even call it that) with two other humans; yet, I'm not so blissfully unaware as you seem to be. Just recently, I reviewed all 14 episodes of The Office (the U.K. one, but close enough) and I can't even count how many rape jokes I heard on that show.

    To wit: Alien anal probe. You've never heard a joke about it? I mean, I get it if you've never, say, heard the blonde joke about giving the cop a blowjob; that's a particular variant on blonde jokes. "Old enough" jokes?

    Please consider: I'm a forty-two year-old American, and the idea that any male, say, fifteen years or older, in the U.S. or anywhere else in the industrialized world, is so unfamiliar with rape jokes is extraordinary to say the least.

    How do we do this? Just start listing rape jokes? Ever heard this? How about this? This one? And that's the thing; it wouldn't matter if you had if you can just say you haven't. And there are people involved in discussions about these issues who most likely would do so.

    We recently had an episode in which the basic joke was a combination of three elements:

    (1) Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

    (2) Slut shaming.

    (3) Alien anal probe.​

    In the end I found myself asking, repeatedly, how one removes forced penetration from a forced penetration joke. I've yet to receive an answer that makes any functional sense, and, "Because I want to", is insufficient.

    Thus I keep hitting on that point: If one sets the bar low enough, everyone and everything passes.

    I can promise that you've heard plenty of rape jokes in your day; the reason you might think you haven't would be that don't recognize them as such.

    Depending on one's culture, proximal and general, it can in fact be very hard to recognize because if rape is so awful, why are these jokes acceptable?

    Which in turn leads us back 'round to the underlying point now playing out in two threads at least as people try to deny that there are beliefs and behaviors within a societal culture contributing to rape.

    In the eighties, John McCain popped off with a joke about how women like to be raped by animals. When it came up twenty years later, many people still had a hard time accepting there was anything wrong about the joke. And part of the defense was to point out it was a long time ago, that was acceptable within the attitudes of the day, and why did anyone bring it up twenty years later, since it's ancient history?

    When the defense of a rape joke is that it is acceptable within the attitudes of the culture, we're pretty much staring straight at rape culture, and the question at that point is whether or not we recognize it.

    And, yeah, it's also true such blatant victim blaming as you note would be hilarious if it wasn't so awful. Because in such a circumstance that the damned fool is correct, the damned fool needs to be locked up simply for the danger his lack of self-control poses. I've never understood that aspect of the defense: It's not my fault I'm that fucking dangerous to my fellow human beings! Okay, right. But he's still a danger, you know? He's still guilty, and is essentially asking to be locked away even longer. And if he can prove an insanity defense, he will remain locked up perpetually until he can demonstrate those impulses either absent or sufficiently controlled, and that latter, technically, is almost an impossible standard. He'd be more likely to get out of prison at all because so many years had passed, he's old and decrepit, and the Republicans want to trim the budget some more. If it wasn't such a morbid subject with such terrible outcomes, the proposition of defending oneself as such would be exactly hilarious.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,137
    Condescension

    Shana Cleveland↱ of La Luz offers an engaging glimpse inside the life of a touring rock band, but the thing is that this is chick rock, so apparently we are suppsoed to look at it differently:

    Our day in Atlanta started with a shitty radio interview with a host who didn't seem to know who we were. "So you guys are all female?" was actually a full question that expected an answer, and the follow-up "Are you trying to say something?" only made things worse. Marian [Li Pino, drummer] put her head on the desk and started to take a nap, live on-air. I attempted to create a new band narrative by listing every 1990s horror-metal group I could think of as a creative influence.

    Can someone tell me, please, what those questions are supposed to mean?

    And here's the catch: Can you answer without falling back to gendertyping?

    ____________________

    Notes:

    Cleveland, Shana. "In 2015, I Released Two Albums and Spent 161 Days on the Road—It Was Boring, Disgusting, Lonely, Dreamy, and Great". The Stranger. 16 December 2015. TheStranger.com. 16 December 2015. http://bit.ly/1YhRoFC
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It's possible that some of the crowd doesn't hate women exactly, but more accurately despises them in their culture's normal fashion.

    Faced with an implicit requirement of gratitude many people respond with a sort of manufactured contempt or despising of the owed. This aspect of human nature is easily incorporated into cultural norms and social structures.
     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,103
    Is anyone making a distinction here between misogyny and sexism?

    Not all sexism is misogynistic.

    The radio interview mentioned above is an example. It is sexist, sure, but it is not born of hatred for women.

    Judging a woman for a job by her appearance is sexist, but it is not hatred.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2015
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,137
    I don't think psychological dysfunction is really a useful discriminator in this case.

    Try it this way, please:

    • "I don't hate you, but it's just not my responsibility to not be disrespectful to you."​

    Sound better?

    I mean, I get it. Sure, people don't hate, but goddamn it, it's unfair to ask them to put in the effort of basic decency.

    Would you care to parse the difference?

    Because this "-ist but not hatred" excuse has been going on in this country since the beginning, and it hasn't led us to Justice yet.

    Nor will it.

    Yet people keep insisting.

    Something about the definition of insanity goes here.
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,103
    I did.

    Sexism is disrespectful. Misogyny is hateful.

    There are lots of things normal people don't give much regard to (whether inadvertently or advertently), but that does not mean they actively hate those things.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,137
    No, you didn't.

    So let me try this way, as clearly as possible:

    Your excuse doesn't cut it, and deliberately fails to address the issue of people's responsibility to not be accidentally disrespectful.

    So try again, Dave, and don't try to slither through this time. The excuse of accidental disrespect only goes so far, and if it is too much to ask that a person learn how to not be accidentally disrespectful, at some point it's no longer accidental.

    Furthermore, the accidental umbrella will cover a lot less than you seem to think it will; that is to say, it covers children and stupid adults. And one of the lines we draw around respecting disability is when doing so becomes harmful. Making excuses for the stupid is another one of those ideas that only goes so far.
     
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,137
    Some Days It Just Goes Like That

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    As I've said before, if I want to know what women think, I'll ask women. To the other, I can't always get the appointment. (That's a bit of humor, y'see. I'm not flying across the damn country just to ask a smart woman a question when I can read her answer, already, anyway.)

    From Lila Shaprio's↱ interview with Harvard physicist Lisa Randall:

    You mentioned before we talked that you had to be very careful with the “women” angle. I’d love to hear more about that―why do you think you have to be careful?

    These issues are very important. However, there is an implicit assumption that any woman who achieves prominence in a male-dominated field will want to discuss them, rather than the actual thing that she does―which is very likely to be a lot more interesting. I almost didn’t do this interview, as you know. I’ve had a rewarding career, but also a rather unique set of experiences. It’s difficult to convey the subtleties involved in a short Q&A.

    Plus, when women speak on controversial topics, the haters are almost invariably more vocal than those in agreement―which adds to the challenge of going ahead. But I recognize the importance of awareness of women in my field and I’ve had enough experiences now that some questions seem worth discussing―hopefully to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

    Here’s an example of what can go wrong: I recently appeared on the NPR show "Wait Wait... Don’t Tell Me" in the "What’s My Job" segment. I was truly excited to be a guest on the show, which I really like, and which would reach a great audience. I ran on adrenaline throughout the interview, which was full of challenging questions―I definitely had to duck some uncomfortable ones that I am pretty sure never would have been asked of one of my male colleagues.

    But the conversation mostly was enjoyable, even though it broached some challenging topics. A few days later when the show aired, I saw the Twitter reactions and then listened to the heavily edited radio broadcast itself, which focused almost exclusively on the parts of the interview that make people squirm. I’m sure it wasn’t intentional.

    Nonetheless, instead of remembering a good interview and some nice points about physics and science communication and my new book, Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs, what people took away were some uncomfortable questions about appearance. Here’s my "Wait Wait" interview with very light editing, which I give them a lot of credit for releasing. Here’s what aired. I have nothing against humor―but the edited version wasn’t funny. The focus on gender interfered with what could have been far more entertaining and interesting.

    I go out of my way to talk about physics and not about myself in my books. I do leading research in my field and work very hard to write big sweeping overviews of contemporary science in a way that doesn’t talk down to people but is readable and enjoyable―even if sometimes challenging. But people don’t usually associate women with these activities, so they end up focusing on my being a woman who does physics while shortchanging the content no matter what I say―at least at first. This goes for reviewers as well as for interviewers. Only a very few talk about the books I actually wrote.

    I'm super excited about what I'm discussing in Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs. It's a book not only about my research on dark matter but about the universe, how it evolved, the nature of dark matter, the solar system, asteroids and comets and what hits the Earth, the development of life and the connection to the environment, as well as the destruction of life through mass extinctions.

    In the simple process of asking me these other questions, it turns into a book by a woman physicist. Yes, I want everyone―girls and boys, men and women―to be interested in physics. And yes, I think my doing it helps people realize there are no prescribed boundaries. But no, I don't think my talking explicitly about it necessarily adds to that interest. On an individual level I can probably change minds. But interviews in newspapers rarely do this.

    Here's a question:

    Is Alice Walker ...

    ... a great black author?

    ... a great female author?

    ... a great black female author?

    ... a great author?​

    At some point, she gets to be simply a great author, and if we always frame her according to her skin color or womanhood, we miss a lot of the great rewards of great literature.

    Jack Cady, for instance, who counts among my mentors insofar as I have any, was a great writer. In 1972, he received the Iowa Award for Short Fiction, one of the nation's most prestigious literary awards; the judge was Joyce Carol Oates.

    Dr. Oates, by comparison, is often described as one of the greatest living female authors. True as that may be, she is also one of the greatest living authors.

    Dr. Randall is one of the world's foremost female physicistss. And true as that may be, she is also one of the world's foremost physicists.

    If you're a rock musician, you are a rock musician. If you are a theoretical physicist, you are a theoretical physicist. If you are an author, you are an author.

    Unless, of course, you're a woman; then you're something novel.

    And this is what must change.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Shapiro, Lila. "The One Question This Brilliant Physicist Wants People To Stop Asking Her". The Huffington Post. 15 December 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 16 December 2015. http://huff.to/1Jd1efK
     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,103
    It is self-evident that sexism and misogyny are different words, as are disrespect and hate, and each has a specific meaning.
    The onus lies with you to demonstrate that they are functionally synonymous.

    Within three posts, you compare me to a snake, though up to this point I have done nothing but civilly discuss the issue. Is that accidental or deliberate disrespect? Do you excuse yourself as justified?

    You are not dispassionate about this issue - and rather quick with the insults. There is no discussing it with you in a civil fashion. Carry on.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2015
    Yazata, milkweed and exchemist like this.
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,137
    Avoiding the point again?

    Yep.

    You've had a couple opportunities to address a specific point and have chosen specifically not to.

    You want to be evasive, people are going to view you in that context. Quit bawling.

    Dispassion? Do you think it would be too much to ask that you go find a clue about this issue?
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,103
    Since the point was mine in the first place - I brought up the distinction of terms - it's kind of impossible to try to claim I'm avoiding it.

    I have addressed it explicitly and directly. Claiming I have not does not change that. I will do so again for your benefit.

    We have used four words. They each have meaning. This is self-evident, or use any dictionary.
    If you wish to claim they are synonymous, that's your case to make.
    I've stated this, you have not addressed it. It is you who are avoiding the point I made.

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

    I think I'm okay with how people seem to be viewing things.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    So the last word, valid or otherwise, is yours to claim.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2015
    milkweed and exchemist like this.
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,137
    As I noted↑, your point is problematic because, "I don't think psychological dysfunction is really a useful discriminator in this case."

    And then I offered an example of what I meant:

    Try it this way, please:​

    • "I don't hate you, but it's just not my responsibility to not be disrespectful to you."​

    And suggested a basic difference: "I mean, I get it. Sure, people don't hate, but goddamn it, it's unfair to ask them to put in the effort of basic decency."

    And then I asked if you would care to parse the difference, and then noted, "Because this '-ist but not hatred' excuse has been going on in this country since the beginning, and it hasn't led us to Justice yet."

    You chose↑ to simply claim you've already parsed the difference, and then reiterate your original argument without actually addressing the points put before you.

    So I tried again↑, but more explicitly: "Your excuse doesn't cut it, and deliberately fails to address the issue of people's responsibility to not be accidentally disrespectful."

    And further noted:

    Furthermore, the accidental umbrella will cover a lot less than you seem to think it will; that is to say, it covers children and stupid adults. And one of the lines we draw around respecting disability is when doing so becomes harmful. Making excuses for the stupid is another one of those ideas that only goes so far.​

    You simply insisted↑, declaring your point self-evident, and then told me the onus lies with me. Except I already offered you examples and an argument that you refuse to acknowledge while declaring your point self-evident and demanding that I satisfy you.

    And then you started bawling.

    And at no point did you address the arguments before you.

    I see no point↑ in attempting another reformulation, since you're simply refusing to address the issue.

    And, besides―

    you're still ignoring it↑.

    Which is why you're ducking the issue in order to bawl about the word "slither".

    I just want you to answer the fucking issue. You know, since you bothered to put your two cents in the first place, it would be nice if you could actually make them worth something.
     
  17. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,440
    still waiting on you to answer if what i was wearing played a part in my sexual assualt. tiassa is about facts. your about shock value and drama.
     
  18. Secular Sanity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    Uh?
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,137
    Excuses

    In May, 2014, Mike Hillman ("The Modern Urban Gentleman")↱ offered his reflection on excuses for misogyny:

    The impact of the killings has, for me, been as much a response to the multitude of reactions to the attacks as to the motives of the man behind them. I have come to have a new appreciation for how hard-wired men are for casual misogyny, and how critically precarious that wiring is — how easily a spark can grow to a fire that devours innocent lives.


    This murderer found solace and support in a community of self-appointed martyrs, bearing the cross in the fight against the destruction of some false conception of manhood, calling themselves the “men's rights movement.” In this twisted worldview of victim-hood, the feminist agenda has emasculated society and every woman is a soldier in the war to destroy male-kind.

    The MRM spins into action anytime a woman publishes, tweets, or speaks any perspective that may be out of line with millennia-old gender roles. The vitriol spewed by these keyboard warriors is disgusting and, frankly, criminal, including their threats of rape and dismemberment of a woman who dares to speak her mind. This phenomenon has become so predictable, so par-for-the-course, that it has had the ironic effect of strengthening the case for the feminism it rails against. (Lewis' law has been coined to describe “that the comments on any article about feminism justify feminism.”)

    This dangerous mode of thinking propagates among self-absorbed, isolationist circles: online forums, Twitter, gaming platforms, tea parties, Ayn Rand book clubs, and the gutters of Reddit. (Look, I know extreme, fabricated victim-hood exists within enclaves of the left, as well. But the utter disconnect with reality exhibited by the MRM and the dangerous lengths to which these folks have gone puts them in an entirely different category of alarming.)

    He also shares his appreciation for Arthur Chu's article on misogyny, we've encountered that one before↗, and it is important for various reasons↗.

    As Hillman put it:

    I, for one, spent all of middle and high school employing these tactics, finally “earning” a long-term girlfriend after years of rejection. Needless to say, that relationship didn't work out. But I and many other of my “nice guy” ilk have had no other frame of reference for male-female relationships than the guy-wins-girl narrative so ingrained in our culture.

    The danger lies in that when only one outcome is imaginable, it becomes an entitlement. And when an entitlement is repeatedly denied, a resentment builds. And when a resentment grows to a point where it can no longer be borne, tragedy strikes.

    Chu's perspective struck a nerve in more people than just me. I posted his article to Facebook and it has been re-shared an incredible 102 times in 24 hours (far exceeding any of my countless efforts to push our Curiata.com posts to that level of virality).

    Chu also linked to another crucial illustration of male misconception. An unattributed reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog The Dish shared a story that Sullivan reprinted in 2012 in which a high school freshman, “disgusted” by homosexuality because a man once made an unwanted pass at him, was stopped in his tracks when his teacher pointed out that it was the first and only time in the student's life he had endured something that women deal with nonstop from the onset of puberty.

    And somewhere in between, he considers the Men's Rights Movement:

    It is, of course, true that #NotAllMen are intentionally anti-female, abusive, or predatory. But there exists a deep-seated masculine entitlement that the MRM actively denies and the more well-adjusted man unintentionally ignores. We are so integrated into our patriarchal system that we can't see the forest for the trees — and I count myself among this group even now, though this conversation has at least made me aware of my ignorance.

    Last year, Amanda Marcotte↱ also gave the question of excuses specific consideration, including examples like what happened in Alabama, where TRAP laws had passed, including the bit about admitting privileges:

    In his decision striking down Alabama’s targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) law, Judge Myron Thompson has an interesting digression about how serious the growing circle of anti-choice abuse has become in Alabama. A clinic in the state hired a doctor, referred to as Dr. H1 in the decision, to cover the clinic’s new hospital admitting privileges requirement. There were efforts to keep her role quiet, but anti-choicers found out anyway. From the decision:

    Although she was not performing abortions herself, protestors came to her private practice and began to confront her pregnant patients, just as they had Dr. Palmer’s. Again, they held signs depicting third-trimester abortions. The local leader of the pro-life movement told Johnson that he would protest Dr. H1’s practice for as long as Dr. H1 continued to serve as covering physician for the clinic.

    This type of abuse is particularly aggravating because anti-choicers claim that they want clinics to have hospital admitting privileges to protect women. The argument is that, even though the hospitalization rate for people who have abortions is among the lowest of all outpatient procedures, clinics need a doctor who can admit patients just in case. So, this clinic goes ahead and hires a doctor whose sole responsibility is to be there in case a patient needs hospital care, and anti-choicers harass her out of her job—for taking on a responsibility that they themselves demanded that someone take on.

    Or the bit about tampons:

    In another disturbing example, feminist writer Jessica Valenti was the target of a harassment campaign for arguing in a piece that tampons should be free, or at least more affordable. The flimsy excuse for the harassment against Valenti was the “free” part, but the tenor of the abuse made it clear that the harassers are more upset about the “tampon” part. Many seemed angry and disgusted by the very fact that women menstruate.

    And then she explains:

    The pretenses for blasting someone with white-hot misogynist anger are becoming so thin as to be transparent, both online and off. Just as anti-choicers holler about “life” while targeting people trying to get any kind of care—prenatal care, contraception, sexually transmitted infections testing—at women’s health clinics, the misogynist crowd will use a bunch of bad faith excuses for why it’s acceptable to target someone for choices that are really none of their business.

    Unfortunately, the problem hasn’t been helped much by the Supreme Court’s recent decision overturning the Massachusetts law requiring protesters to stand 35 feet away from a clinic entrance. Part of the rationale for the decision was the argument that the people standing in the clinic entrance are just trying to “help” by “counseling” women. That argument was clearly made in bad faith, as anti-choicers involved in the McCullen v. Coakley case offered no evidence that their “help” was actually helpful or that women were seeking it. Furthermore, if “help” has to be shouted directly in someone’s face, it simply isn’t help by any normal definition of the term. It’s harassment.

    But that bad faith argument worked. In its decision, the Supreme Court blessed the use of bad faith arguments to excuse the harassment of women, even when those arguments are laughably flimsy. That, taken with the way the Internet makes misogynists feel like they have a real community, suggests that what we’re seeing in Alabama may be just the beginning. There’s no cap on how silly the argument justifying misogyny has to be now, and the circle of eligible targets is growing.

    And it's true, misogynists are running out of excuses. Then again, this is in part because those excuses end up supporting terrorism and mayhem. Ted Cruz blames transgendered leftists for the actions of a hardline, right-wing Christianist; he also picked up the endorsement of the nation's most succesful Christianist terror supporter, Troy Newman, whose partner in crime is an actual terrorist. In our own Sciforums community, we've seen a rape advocate swoon over a mass murderer, and lately the misogynist line has holed up in Know-Nothing territory. These absurdities only remind that the misogynists are running out of excuses.

    Yet they continue to hold out, and this is only possible because of prevailing societal misogyny that presupposes against the humanity and human rights of women.

    Which, in turn, is hatred, pure and simple.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Hillman, Mike. "'Rights of man' and other false excuses for misogyny". Curiata. 28 May 2014. Curata.com. 17 December 2015. http://bit.ly/1malERg

    Marcotte, Amanda. "Excuses for Anti-Choice and Misogynist Harassment Grow Flimsier". RH Reality Check. 2 September 2015. RHRealityCheck.org. 17 December 2015. http://bit.ly/1OaUbeZ
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Most people would classify treating women with contempt and despising them as members of a group under "misogyny".

    Especially if their behavior were to be defended and excused by the perps, and if it were so normal a part of their dealings with women as to be "inadvertent" routinely and repetitively.

    And particularly in light of the fact that such classification is part of the definition of the word "misogyny" as posted in the OP of this thread.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2015
  21. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,440
    bout what i expected. you may have forgotten because you think sexual assault is a joke i don't
     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,103




    And then I asked if you would care to parse the difference, and then noted, "Because this '-ist but not hatred' excuse has been going on in this country since the beginning, and it hasn't led us to Justice yet."

    You chose↑ to simply claim you've already parsed the difference, and then reiterate your original argument without actually addressing the points put before you.

    So I tried again↑, but more explicitly: "Your excuse doesn't cut it, and deliberately fails to address the issue of people's responsibility to not be accidentally disrespectful."

    And further noted:

    Furthermore, the accidental umbrella will cover a lot less than you seem to think it will; that is to say, it covers children and stupid adults. And one of the lines we draw around respecting disability is when doing so becomes harmful. Making excuses for the stupid is another one of those ideas that only goes so far.​

    You simply insisted↑, declaring your point self-evident, and then told me the onus lies with me. Except I already offered you examples and an argument that you refuse to acknowledge while declaring your point self-evident and demanding that I satisfy you.

    And then you started bawling.

    And at no point did you address the arguments before you.

    I see no point↑ in attempting another reformulation, since you're simply refusing to address the issue.

    And, besides―



    you're still ignoring it↑.



    Which is why you're ducking the issue in order to bawl about the word "slither".



    I just want you to answer the fucking issue. You know, since you bothered to put your two cents in the first place, it would be nice if you could actually make them worth something.[/QUOTE]

     
    milkweed likes this.
  23. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    This is an old post, but a perfect example of misogyny. The very definition that the person finds includes, "ingrained prejudice against women," yet the person wants to dismiss all discussion of "ingrained prejudice against women" if there is not actual hatred. So the poster is encouraging us to ignore the dislike of women, contempt for women, and ingrained prejudice against women if there is no actual hatred of women expressed.

    Fuck this misogyny.
     
    pjdude1219 likes this.

Share This Page