Degrees of Misogyny

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

  1. tali89 Registered Senior Member

    Agreed. Iceaura's remarks on social dynamics are more reflective of his own ingrained prejudices, rather than Dave's.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Not motives - culturally ingrained viewpoints. And they nothing if not visible - obvious, even.

    It's not a prejudice, but an observation - made right here, overtly, with evidence.

    It was Dave, recall, who started out earlier in this thread attempting to deny the presence of misogyny by pointing to an absence of overt hatred. Or as I noted, finally, after reading what came of that:
    He - and you - cannot reasonably claim to be merely calling attention to the non-identity of two words we can all look up in the dictionary. You want a particular distinction, or kind of distinction, to make possible the claim that the underlying but visible misogyny necessary to support the culturally normative sexism in the US does not exist.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    When guys hold a door for me, I smile and say thanks. I think its nice. Polite. Thoughtful even. I think most people at least say thanks, and even smile so an expectation of a smile in return would be a pavlov's dog expectation. Been there, done that, know what to expect.

    Feel free to keep holding doors because your more likely to experience a smile than an accusation of misogyny.

    BTW have you ever been confronted for holding a door for someone? If not, then I guess it just verifies no one thinks its particularily creepy. Well not in real life anyways...
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2015
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    And now we are supposed to pretend that the overt and clear distinction Dave himself drew

    - explicitly denying that his hypothetical guy was just "holding the door for someone", as a courtesy, specifically stating that the doorholding was not a courtesy, but an intentionally arranged encounter of chivalry with a "female" who by virtue of femaleness "caught his eye" -

    was not part of this. In a thread where failure to consider distinctions like that is an accusation directed at us.

    In real life people hold doors out of courtesy, for all kinds of people. Nothing creepy about that.

    Are you trying to tell us, now, that is what Dave was talking about?
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2015
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    What you said to Dave was this: " 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." This is making a claim about how Dave wants US sexism to be seen. You are saying that is his motive in saying what he says. It may not be. It may simply be that he objects , as I do, to ascribing a phenomenon to the wrong cause. Nobody with a scientific cast of mind can let such a thing go by unchallenged.

    But why not read this Grauniad article in which various feminists (I gather I am no longer entitled to be one, thought I have considered myself one for forty odd years) discuss their views on the difference in meaning of these words: ?

    At the very least, this shows there is room for a civilised debate - without hysterical mudslinging - on the topic.
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2015
    milkweed likes this.
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    That's a bit ironic, all things considered; you deploy that line in defense of basic rudeness.

    There is a question on the table↑ pertaining to DaveC's ad hoc redefinition of words that he refuses to answer; this refusal is especially odious considering he is now using you as a tool to continue his cowardly evasion↑:

    "Can this thread move forward now, mindful of the distinction?"

    And the answer is no, we're not moving forward with an artificial standard deliberately crafted to empower his own bigotry.

    As such, your appeal to civilized debate in defense of lacking basic decency is at least a bit ironic.
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    "When you point your finger, three of your fingers are pointing back at you." You, of all people, have no business criticizing rudeness.

    Disagreeing with you is not the same as disrespecting you. I've been far more respectful of you than your behavior warrants.

    Please feel free to use the dictionary definitions of choice. No one - including me - forced you to use anything else.

    No use shirking the responsibility to me, let alone blaming me for it. (Though considering the number of times I've had to correct your misuse of terms, it's certainly understandable why you have been deferring to me till this point.)

    Take responsibility for yourself, that's the only route out of the hate/blame pit.
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2015
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Logical fallacy. You are attempting declare that your premise (that misogyny is present) is the conclusion. This is called begging the question. There is nothing to deny, since it has not been established in the first place.

    Straw man. I count several things in there I never said or implied. Go ahead attack that, but they're your words, not mine.
    I never said Hypothetical Guy was holding the door "just" out of courtesy.
    It was certainly not "intentionally" arranged, nor any kind of "encounter".

    Hypothetical guy lives in a big city with lots of people, all commuting. He's got to get to work. He passes through a doorway out of the subway and, seeing someone - a woman - behind him, reflexively holds the door, and smiles as he does so.

    Surely this is an uncountably common enough scenario that it couldn't have been misinterpreted. But misinterpreted it was. Apologies, I have clarified.

    Notice, readers that, rather than accusing someone of "twisting my words", I apologize and clarify them. This is taking responsibility, as opposed to blaming others. This is civilized discourse.
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2015
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Does anybody else want to discuss misogyny? Or shall we just keep rehashing the last hundred or so posts?
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    The funny part is how you continue to flee, bawling, from the issue.

    So, yeah. Boo-hoo, poor you.

    Now, are you capable of answering the issue?

    Because, no―

    ―you do not get to arbitrarily redefine words for the sake of your own, personal, ultimately convenient political correctness.

    You have attempted a redefinition, and then cry and wail unto the heavens at the first obvious question.

    So, no, we are not undertaking any special accommodation for your exceptional needs in this discussion.
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    More ad homs. Got any valid input on the issue?

    So, that's a 'no' on using a dictionary definition of your choice?

    So, you'll just keep rehashing? No movement forward?

    I think the thesis of this thread has been demonstrated. The word misogyny is cast about with free abandon. When examined, what is revealed is rhetoric, personal attacks, straw men and a whole lot of contempt. Funny, contempt is one of the words in the definition of misogyny.
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Here's place we can move forward from.

    In a thread whose central subject directly involves respect versus contempt - does it not behoove any and all contributors to put their money where their mouths are, and exercise respect while eschewing contempt? Would that not be a prerequisite to any possible discussion? If that cannot be achieved, it is not self-evident that misogyny is simply one small facet of a much larger issue of egregious mistreatment and disrespect of people, gender or no?
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    We will not be moving forward in any manner that pretends your dishonesty has any merit:

    Is it that important to you to flee the question?

    After all this, it's that important to you to not answer?

    You could have shown some basic, decent respect by answering the issue, but instead you chose to do otherwise.

    Stop crying.
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Or be like everyone else, or well, normal people and hold the door for everyone, regardless of sex. Because you know, it's polite to do so. What is not polite is some leering guy who is doing it only for the women who catch his eyes and he's doing it because he just wants to see how 'purdy your lil smile is'. At that point, you have become an object for his enjoyment and pleasure. You can tell the difference between the two, can't you?

    Like a thread about trees, leaves should never be mentioned..

    Sexism is to misogyny what a leaf is to a tree. You will not be able to discuss misogyny without looking at sexism. Why? Because they stem from the same belief system. They live in the same fetid pond.

    I don't understand why this is such an issue for you. We all know and understand the difference. We do not need you to try to redefine the two, to turn sexism into some polite gentlemanly action of some sort.

    Perhaps you are that pedantic or anal about such things and perhaps you are the type of person who doesn't like the food on his plate to touch, but misogyny stems from sexism and misogyny is sexist. How can you possibly think that sexism could not come up in a discussion about misogyny?

    You haven't been trying to keep it on track. You have spent pages trying to redefine it to fit into what makes you comfortable. In the process, you have tried to lecture me about what is and is not misogynistic and then had the gall to tell me that I had no choice but to see it your way. Surely the irony of your behaviour is not lost on you?

    Everyone who responded to those points have addressed it as coming from you. Why? Because you said "I", repeatedly. Are you embarrassed that your behaviour is creepy?

    And altering the meaning of words to make you comfortable will not help your case.

    If you wish to live in such a world of fantasy, then knock yourself out. But I think Iceaura called it as he saw it. He didn't make it up. He just read your words and interpreted it as they were written.

    But it wasn't a scenario, was it? You only turned it into a scenario when your creepy behaviour was called out. You tried to excuse it and when that didn't fly, you immediately tried to turn it into a "scenario".

    And here you are again, trying to redefine misogyny that does not involve sexism - which is impossible, because misogyny is sexist.. I have to wonder why? Is it because you have been caught out in this thread? Is that why you want to redefine those terms, to make you feel better about yourself?

    Why don't we discuss misogyny and all that is involved with the subject? You know, discuss the attitudes that feed it and discuss where it stems from and how to combat it, for example? Or is that too difficult for you, because to discuss misogyny, and to discuss how it can be tackled, you would have to discuss the sexist attitudes that exist.. Oh noes, whatever shall you do? Shall I get you some tissues for when you start wailing again? Do you need a damp cloth for your forehead?

    Oh, I agree that you are trying to redefine meanings of words and terms. I do not agree to go along with you in that regard.
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    If that were so, he would not be trying to redefine both the phenomenon and the "cause", as he is. He would be arguing against the argument made, not some different invention of his own.

    It would be meaningless to "object" to an ascription of some other phenomenon to some other cause, than anyone actually has. So Dave is not doing that. Instead, he is attempting to alter the meaning of the terms involved and change the context of the discussion.

    He has been, consistently from his first posts here, attempting to expand the reference of "sexism" to something he can work free of misogyny, and restrict the definition of misogyny to something he can reasonably claim is not involved in the US reality of sexism. (Note: involved, "rooted", mutually reinforcing, motivating, suppporting, inextricably involved, etc, as was posted; not "cause and effect", which was not posted by me - that attempted slanting and misrepresentation is also a deception, from you, concerning my argument here. I, at least, am not arguing cause and effect.)
    No. I am objecting to your argument denying the presence of misogyny by pointing to an absence of overt hatred. I pointed out that it was an invalid argument, because the absence of overt hatred does not imply the absence of misogyny. No stage of any argument of mine - premise, conclusion, evidence, presumption, whatever - is involved. How or where or why - or even if - I came to regard misogyny as involved in that example of sexism, has nothing to do with the invalidity of your attempted argument against its presence. Overt hatred is not, as you presume there and apparently since, a necessary feature of misogyny. And I referred you to the OP, as demonstration of that.
    Of course. You said he wasn't. You denied the role of courtesy, in order to identify the doorholding as sexism. You were attempting to present an example of innocent sexism, not innocent courtesy (which everyone already admits).
    He deliberately holds doors for those who "catch his eye" and not other people, while "hoping for a smile" just as he would buy a lottery ticket hoping for a win. That's your description.

    There is no debate in that article. And no hysterical mudslinging here, despite the debate.

    The confusions inherent in many of those women's responses will not help here - back to square one, would be. And if those women were to be involved in a debate, it sounds like it would resemble this one fairly closely - false attempts to present people as failing to distinguish sexism from misogyny, confusion of misogyny with overt and displayed hatred, the whole schtick.
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2015
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Yes. One is a straw man.
    If you have a valid argument against the scenario, why do you have to make up a new one?
    You are demonstrating by your response that the original scenario is unassailable.

    Agree! The point has always been that you can discuss sexism without invoking misogyny. Not all sexism is misogynistic.

    It means you can't take given example of sexism and assume it is misogynistic.

    Ad hom. Address the issue, not the issuer. It doesn't help your argument. Moving to next point.

    As I have said, please feel free to put forth a defintion you are comfortable with. You can't defer to me then complain about it.

    I only have the gall to expect you to acknowledge an indisputable fact: that Tiassa saw the word "hope" and substituted the word "expect", then went on for 23 lines attacking that straw man:
    Post #96. That is all I asked.

    Ad hom. Address the issue, not the issuer. It doesn't help your argument. Moving to next point.

    No. S/he added his own, then attacked those. Because it was innocent as-written. Straw man.

    Go back and read it.

    Your statements above are not logical. I have never claimed that misogyny is not sexist, only that sexism is not necessarily misogynist.

    A circle is always a shape, but shape is not always a circle.

    Bells, you continue to miss this point - about a dozen times now. I have to wonder if it is deliberate because you are caught up in being argumentative, or whether you really don't understand logic.
    You need to acknowledge one or the other, or I can't continue to discuss it seriously. Do you really not get the difference?

    So define the terms. Right now. Let's put this on the table and be done with it. You hide behind an accusation of defining terms, yet you provide no alternative, simply blame.
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Then let's use a definition of the terms we can all agree on. I've never laid claim to being the arbiter of the definitions.
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    To continue moving forward with the core thesis of the thread defined post 1 (let's discuss misogyny):

    In an world (say, this microcosm of a thread) where contempt and disrespect are not only tolerated but commonplace - how is misogyny abnormal? i.e. why should women be entitled to special treatment? They are as valid a target for contempt as any man, child, adversary, person you are addressing, person you don't like, person who is stupid - or any other criteria chosen by the contemptor.

    By the actions of those in this thread, misogyny is simply one minor facet of what is demonstrably considered normal, acceptable behavior.
    milkweed likes this.
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Tiassa, for the record, I am happy to address any original questions you put forth to which you did not get satisfactory response. Provided you can remain civil.

    We both have expectations: you expect that, when challenged with a question I will answer it, instead of avoiding it. (A reasonable expectation in a debate.)
    I expect that you will engage in discussion with respect. (I have no obligation to engage someone who has no respect for me.)
  23. Bells Staff Member

    This is ridiculous.

    You are insisting that we only discuss this topic within your limited and frankly, sexist limitations. No one is disagreeing that not all sexism is misogynistic. But you have spent pages trying to redefine terms and worse still, you are trying to pass sexist attitudes as being gentlemanly acts and somehow harmless acts, while completely disregarding that misogyny, you know, the very subject this thread is meant to be about, stems from sexism. Worse still, you seem to believe that a discussion about misogyny should not involve any discussion about sexism, because you cannot seem to understand that misogyny stems from sexism as sexism often stems from misogyny. The two are connected in every way.

    You have posted these "scenarios" and then you have thrown a tantrum when your scenarios were called out for being sexist and yes, downright creepy. To put it into some perspective, your whole little scenario about opening doors reduced the women 'who caught your eye', so much so that you were opening doors for them in the "hope" of a smile, were reduced to mere objects for your pleasure and enjoyment. You stopped seeing them as human beings and started to see them as objects that could be providing you with pleasure if they smiled at you. That was the sole purpose of your acts in your little scenario. And it is sexist in a variety of ways. Aside from turning these women into objects:

    Psychologists found that a friendly or chivalrous attitude can mask chauvinistic and patronizing views because the men see females as weak creatures in need of their protection.

    They warned that this “benevolent sexism” was harder to spot than the hostile version borne out of an open antipathy.

    Jin Goh, a psychologist from Northeastern University, Boston, in the U.S., said: “While many people are sensitive to sexist verbal offences, they may not readily associate sexism with warmth and friendliness. Unless sexism is understood as having both hostile and benevolent properties, the insidious nature of benevolent sexism will continue to be one of the driving forces behind gender inequality.”

    The study, believed to be the first of its kind, involved 27 pairs of U.S. undergraduate men and women. Participants were filmed while they played a trivia game together and chatted afterwards. Experts then scrutinized their interaction by reporting their impressions and counting certain non-verbal cues such as smiles.

    Word count software was also used to further analyze their behaviour.

    Scientists found that the more hostile sexist participants were perceived as less approachable and friendly in their speech and smiled less during the interaction.

    In turn, those who displayed a benevolent sexism were considered more approachable, warmer, friendlier and more likely to smile. They also used more positive emotional words and were overall more patient while waiting for a woman to answer trivia questions.

    The study, published in the journal Sex Roles, says the way a man smiles and chats to women will reveal his true attitude. Prof Judith Hall, a co-author, said: “Benevolent sexism is like a wolf in sheep’s clothing that perpetuates support for gender inequality among women at an interpersonal level. These supposed gestures of good faith may entice women to accept the status quo in society because sexism literally looks welcoming, appealing, and harmless.”

    Do you understand that viewing women as being less than, weaker, not equal to, inferior to men, can and does amount to misogyny? At all?

    And then, you seem to think that you are in a position to lecture me about what is sexism and what is misogyny, based on your limited interpretations.. The word mansplain applies here to describe what you are now doing. And it is laughable that you are throwing what is tantamount to a tantrum because I do not take your opinions on this subject seriously.

    In short, you are being sexist. Decidedly so.

    Let me put it into some perspective for you:

    Call it sexism, male chauvinism, or any other name, it adds up to the same thing: ideologies and methods for controlling, restricting, suppressing, denigrating, and when necessary physically harming women so that men can be in charge of their reproductive capacities, limit them mainly to reproductive and other subservient roles, and avoid competing with them in an open market of human effort, talent, and skill.

    In other words, you don't have to hate women to behave hatefully toward them.

    Do you understand what this means within the context of this discussion? That sexism, is the reality of misogyny and then some.

Share This Page