Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Bowser, Nov 13, 2015.
There's a whole world out there besides airlines...
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Yes. Tiassa pretty much freaked on the word expectation. Which was never used.
Hope is an enduring part of human nature. We hope for attention, love, world peace. You try to turn it to mud.
The "creepy" card is an invalid argument in an academic discussion. It is a thinly-veiled ad hominem. Address the issue, not the issuer.
I did not compare women to winning a lottery, and you know that perfectly well. We are distinguishing terms here, for the benefit of Tiassa, who requires clarification.
If I said "Blonde is the colour of a banana but red is the colour of a firetruck. His hair is red." Would you accuse me of calling him a firetruck?
Yes. This is how basic human interaction occurs. One makes an overture, another responds, or doesn't. It's not evil.
The example was not in this discussion where misogyny is being discussed; it was in the real world, at a doorway. If you wish to carry this misanthropy with you everywhere, and see it in everything, that's no one's responsibility but your own.
Faulty analogy. Deliberately so.
The rest of what you say is a digression from your deliberate corruption of the meaning of words and resulting ad hom.
They are dealing with the human race in a normal, public interaction.
If someone smiling at you is cause for not being able to deal with it, that is a psychological condition that will need treatment unless you wish to be a shut-in. You do not have the right to not be smiled at in public.
You try to sprinkle Evil Sauce on everything. Bells is having the same problem, above. Doesn't make it so.
No. It's concerning that you do.
Counterquestion: Do you acknowledge that misogynists are human and have human rights, full stop?
No. Now what?
Owing to the possibility of training a dog, chimpanzee, horse, or other such animal to loathe women, I can't actually promise you that all misogynists really are human beings. Barring such extraordinary circumstances, though, yes.
And you are trying to excuse your own behaviour of trying to change the subject and yes, make excuses for behaviour that is creepy and sleazy.
Right. You weren't trying to muddy the waters by comparing buying a lottery ticket and saying you hoped you would win, with opening the doors for women and women only in the "hope" they would smile at you.. And then gave some spiel about how you did not expect to win or get a smile, just "hoped".. Which frankly, is self serving of you.
You are offended at finding your behaviour is creepy to women? Then perhaps you should look at said behaviour and then realise how you are coming across. Yes, it is creepy.
Let me remind you of your exact words:
Hope and expectation are two different things.
I hope to win the lottery but I don't expect it. I hope for a smile, but there is no obligation placed upon her.
You aren't holding doors open for people to be polite. You are doing it because you "hope" to get something out of it for yourself. Just as you buy a lottery ticket in the hope you win it. So creating another strawman to try to change the subject again is not going to work.
You are targeting women with what you described as "chivalry" in the hope you get some benefit from her out of it. That, sir, is not how basic human interaction occurs.
Let's see. You went out of your way to try to change the subject of this thread around and basically defend behaviour that most view as a negative. And in changing the subject matter, you twisted yourself into a proverbial pretzel and then advised of your own behaviour which, as a woman, I think is creepy and plays directly into the subject matter of this thread. You created a strawman and now you are stuck with it. You provided examples based on your strawman, of your behaviour, and it is creepy. No, really, who goes out of their way to open doors just for certain women in the hope that they get something from the woman out of it? You are like the guys in the street harassment video.
But choosing to do it because a woman has caught your eye is identifying her by her gender, as a person you'd like to see smile from. It is sexist, in that his behavior is gender-specific, but it is not contemptuous.
This is creepy.
I don't hate people Dave and trying to turn this one on me just makes your stance here more pitiful.
But keep digging. You are simply proving our point about misogyny.
Coming from you, that is rich.
And as I said before, if you don't like having your behaviour described as being creepy, then perhaps you should look at your behaviour.
No, I am clearing the water that Tiassa tried to muddy. She substituted the word I used for her own word, then attacked that. That is a textbook straw man.
You have no choice but to acknowledge this.
No, for several reasons:
1] We are not discussiong me or my behavior; we are discussing a hypothetical guy holding a door. True, even I have blurred the lines, saying 'I' instead of 'Bob', but it is still just a discussion about a hypothetical.
2] You do not speak for "women"; you speak for yourself only.
No. Again, only you.
Your whole argument has digressed to a big ad hominem. You are attempting to make personal what is an otherwise civil discussion about an invented situation that we are engaging in to try to come to terms with misogyny.
Ad homs are an act of last resort - one of the strongest indicators that one has no valid response to the issue under discussion - one attacks the issuer instead. If you have a stronger leg to stand on, you'd best do so.
Nothing. I simply wanted to actualize my expectations about how long we have yet to wait until the left will start to propose concentration camps for political incorrect speech.
Sorry. Did you understand what Schmelzer was asking? What you just said was that you think certain people are not human and are not entitled to human rights.
I think that it is not what you intended to say.
This whole discussion is a quite ghastly eye-opener to the poisonous world of American sexual politics.
It makes me so glad I am over 60 and live in London, where people are a lot less prickly and up-their-own-arses about sexual interaction.
I think it is more the internet.
It's just a couple of very vocal people in a forum. I wouldn't take it as representative. But I'm Canadian, so maybe I'm too forgiving. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You have muddied the waters of this thread from your first post here. So much so that you have been going out of your way to try to change the subject of this thread.
In light of the subject matter of this thread, do you really think making such comments is going to help you at present?
When you say things like this:
People will take you at your word. Trying to now move the goal post because you are coming across like some creepy dude looking for women to open doors for because you want them to smile at you is kind of bizarre. Are you now saying you don't do this? Because this isn't the first time you have tried to make this point in this thread, hence why you are coming across in a creepy way. I think Iceaura put it best:
And this is the problem with you.
So perhaps you should refrain from trying to blame everyone else for your behaviour.
I can tell you now, with 100% certainty that every single woman I know would find your comments creepy. So I can and do speak for those women.
Your arguments in this thread basically amount to street harassment. You know, the guys who hang out on the street and say hi to women who catch their eyes in the "hope" they say "hi" back.
Well considering that you are arguing about this with everyone aside from one person, thus far, in this thread, I am pretty sure it isn't just me.
And your argument has digressed into making this thread into anything and everything but misogyny.
In short, you don't have to tell me how to come to terms with misogyny or sexism.
And your whining is the act of a desperate individual who has nothing else to fall back on. I mean we only have to look at this:
This is laughable. You are now trying to change the meaning of words to suit your narrative. This would be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous.
Perhaps if you wish to discuss the topic of this thread, you should stop whining when you get called out for trying to change the subject with just about every single post...
Let us be clear, Dave.
You muddied the waters with your own definition↑.
You were presented with a basic question↑ about the function of that definition.
You dodged that question↑, pitched a fit↑ when called out, and have yet to actually address the very basic question, these days and crocodile tears later.
Functionally, you are simply doing what generations of bigots preceding you have done in trying to carve out an acceptable context for hatred and denigration.
What radio DJ ever asked the Beastie Boys, "So, you Negroes are all white?" And we can only wonder at what "statement" they were trying to make by being white.
The proposition that there is a "respectable" way to so disrespectful? The accidental bigot? In the face of persistent discrimination the answer is that these people are too stupid to get their heads on straight?
No, really. Sure the DJ doesn't hate anyone, but, what, he'll be damned if he ever has to put the effort into not being disrespectful? It's not much of a defense, and basically proposes that the guy is so ignorant that he can't comprehend what's wrong with identifying a bunch of women as men and then asking them if they're trying to make a statement by being women.
The question is so 1965, and only persists fifty years later because it is unfair to ask people to be respectful. You know, to women.
Call a bunch of dudes, "ladies", and ask them if they're trying to make a statement by being men, and, well, them's nearly fightin' words. You know, for misogynists.
You're the one who parses a personal standard in order to demand it for the general discussion; it would be more useful if you could at least be a decent enough human being to address the obvious, glaring questions.
I asked if anyone was distinguishing between sexism and misogyny. That is a salient - and critical point. A thread about misogyny should be about misogyny, not about something else.
I am the only one trying to stay on track. Let's talk about misogyny not sexism. Agreed?
People are smart enough to know that we are talking about a hypothetical situation for the purpose of discussion. Regardless, attacking a person instead of an argument is still an ad hominem. It does not benefit your case.
Ad hom. Does not help your case.
Iceaura's entire paragraph was a straw man. S/he made it up, just the way s/he liked, with a whole pile of words that I didn't say, and then attacked that. You and s/he can beat on that straw man all you want.
Another straw man. If you found flaw in my scenario, you wouldn't have to invent your own.
Then we're agreed. Let's discuss misogyny, not sexism.
Yes. S/he was correct, And So I retracted it. See post #98.
Because that's what reasonable people do.
Then we are all agreed. Let's discuss misogyny.
I raised this point in post #25.
A simple "OK, we agree." would have spared us 90 posts.
Hatred and denigration are not acceptable behavior. On this we agree.
I do not agree that all forms of insensitivity are spawned from hatred. People are flawed. You are people; you are flawed too. I'm not excusing it; I'm simply stating that it's a condition we all need to deal with.
I agree. Let's wonder. Because we can't know.
It was your unilateral insistence that all cases were demonstrably born of denigration that was my only objection. (Well, that, and how you keep producing straw men by substituting your own words for another's.)
Let s/he who is without sin cast the the first stone. Do you declare that you have shown no disrespect for people, whether advertently or inadvertently about any number of issues (not just sexism)? Do you hold your self to the same standard that you hold others? Do you confess that you are "too stupid to get your head on straight"? Or is sexism the only thing that you see wrong with fallible humans?
I do not excuse it; it is something we all need to work on. Including you.
But all the denigrating and poo-flinging you've been doing in this thread - it's hypocritical. Is respect and sensitivity only required by other people? You've shot yourself in the foot multiple times on this one. Why do you think you deserve any more respect than you've shown?
Yup. That's sexist. I made that point in post 25.
We're supposed to be discussing misogyny.
That'd be sexist. On this we've never disagreed. Let's talk about misogyny.
It has taken me 92 posts now, just to get you to come around to what exchemist observed in post 55:
Can this thread move forward now, mindful of the distinction?
They are dealing with certain types of men forcing upon them an objectionable interaction they cannot reasonably (with minimal effort or thought) avoid. Whether that kind of thing is "normal" would depend on your culture.
That I do what? Recognize your ingrained presumption of women's inferior hierarchical status?
Excuses, excuses. They don't treat their female bosses like that. They don't treat men like that. Why not?
The problem is not that other people don't recognize a distinction between those words. The problem seems to be that you want a different distinction - beginning with your initial and repeated confusion of misogyny with hatred, continuing with your attempts to post examples of "sexism without misogyny", you seem to be trying to expunge the stain of misogyny from the sexism of US culture. You want the sexism of US culture to be seen as, rehabilitated to be, innocent, in a sense.
It can't be done.
You are imputing motives to Dave which cannot be reliably inferred from what he has been saying.
This is prejudice, on your part.
Separate names with a comma.