What constitutes Misogyny?

[Stephen Morgan]

IMO this idea is backwards. Men were the first to gather for the pooling of resources to enhance power (we see how well that has gone and where it has got us). The liberation movement to dismantle our current patriarchal culture is largely pioneered by women, and I feel some of this has to do with the notions men should not express their emotions. Men need to join the movement, how to do so without being thought less of by your peers I have yet to contemplate.

Well, in the modern era men were the first to form trade unions for mutual economic activity, but women tend to monopolise collective organisation explicitly by sex, as a sex, for that sex.

---

Men, let me ask you something:

Are you aware that a space in which to speak about the cultural pressures on you is in the things-you-badly-want-and-can-easily-have-if-you-wish-no-one-will-punish-you-for-it-it's-perfectly-okay-and-natural category, not the other one?

Because it is. Some things are. Lots of things, really. You might have a few others misfiled, too, come to think of it.


^^ That's just a shot in the dark on my part, wrt what in the male psyche prevents men from speaking of stuff like that even when they badly want to. And it may well be (IOW, probably is) totally wrong. However, it's kindly meant, fwiw.

I for one don't like talking. Also, it's much easier not to do something which is quite likely to lead to ridicule, especially from women. Also more than ridicule, feminist political groups generally opposing any sort of men-only club. So, only rich men have anything which excludes women because only they can get away with it. Golf clubs can keep out women, the freemasons can keep out women, the Working Mens' Clubs can't keep out women because they get complaints from women and pickets with signs and angry letters in the newspapers and so on.

---

Stephen, perhaps you'd like this song:

I do like that song, one of my favourite Beautiful South songs. It's a pity they replaced the woman who could sing with one who couldn't. Looks the same, just not as good at singing. Younger, too. Looks so similar, in fact, that I saw one of their gigs and I saw her and I thought to myself "she's younger than I thought", not realising she'd been replaced.

---

So you troll someone elses thread, simply ignoring all evidence and out-boring everyone else. How did you acheive Old Fart at such a young age?

Just a natural inclination, I believe. There's no special training, if you're looking for tips.

---

The Utilikilt Man Skirt:

Bit pricey, but thanks.

---

You're still wrong. I may do a youtube video to try to convince you, perhaps I am more verbally convincing than literally.

Wait. Now I'm confused. Have you been using extra-verbal media of some sort to persuade me of the merit of your convictions thus far? Because that might explain a lot. I've just been receiving the words.

Fucking internet. Give me my pictograms and glyphs, already! Stephen gave them to me and they're mine.

I want them.

Well, I was thinking more about tone of voice and those sorts of things which are commonly regarded as being excluded by internet communication. Verbal as in spoken words, not just wordy words. And my pretty face, of course.

[charlie meadows]

Something like that.



Sometimes even more twisted and poignant: Secret attraction and revulsion.

Dammit! After a moment or two of ruthless soul-searching, I decided that since the "within men" in "It's the fear and hatred of homosexuality within men" is capable of that interpretation, I should just force myself to regard the territory as covered and move on, in the interests of brevity.

I couldn't tell if you were covering that ground or not. So I said it explicitly. After all, 'within men' could mean within other men; whereas the latter explicitly means within the homophobe himself.

All in all, a minor point, if there can be such when trying to describe or define 'what constitutes misogyny'. Maybe by covering the ground again it will bear fruit, so to speak.

[Joe Hillshoist]

I for one don't like talking. Also, it's much easier not to do something which is quite likely to lead to ridicule, especially from women. Also more than ridicule, feminist political groups generally opposing any sort of men-only club. So, only rich men have anything which excludes women because only they can get away with it. Golf clubs can keep out women, the freemasons can keep out women, the Working Mens' Clubs can't keep out women because they get complaints from women and pickets with signs and angry letters in the newspapers and so on.

Sometimes I find reading your posts aloud with empharsis can be quite humerous.

I swear you are starting to sound like that old bloke from One Foot in the Grave.

[Canadian_watcher]

Well, in the modern era men were the first to form trade unions for mutual economic activity, but women tend to monopolise collective organisation explicitly by sex, as a sex, for that sex.

wrong.

see: The pickett: Tasmanian mine workers defend their job " Women didn't work in the mine yet women won the thing for the men. And yes, most of them had a financial interest since a lot of the men workers were their husbands, but that makes zero difference because there *is* no difference in the motivation of union activity no matter who is in the union.

see also: Strikes of the 70s and 80s: the Invisible Role of Women Which tells of three miners strikes in the US where women organized for men.

and this more recent one from Jolly Old England (and Wales and Scotland) You must remember or have learned about the mining strikes there, right chum? Miner's Strike 1984-1985

[Stephen Morgan]

I for one don't like talking. Also, it's much easier not to do something which is quite likely to lead to ridicule, especially from women. Also more than ridicule, feminist political groups generally opposing any sort of men-only club. So, only rich men have anything which excludes women because only they can get away with it. Golf clubs can keep out women, the freemasons can keep out women, the Working Mens' Clubs can't keep out women because they get complaints from women and pickets with signs and angry letters in the newspapers and so on.

Sometimes I find reading your posts aloud with empharsis can be quite humerous.

I swear you are starting to sound like that old bloke from One Foot in the Grave.

I don't b... no, that's quite acceptable.

Well, in the modern era men were the first to form trade unions for mutual economic activity, but women tend to monopolise collective organisation explicitly by sex, as a sex, for that sex.

wrong.

see: The pickett: Tasmanian mine workers defend their job " Women didn't work in the mine yet women won the thing for the men. And yes, most of them had a financial interest since a lot of the men workers were their husbands, but that makes zero difference because there *is* no difference in the motivation of union activity no matter who is in the union.

see also: Strikes of the 70s and 80s: the Invisible Role of Women Which tells of three miners strikes in the US where women organized for men.

and this more recent one from Jolly Old England (and Wales and Scotland) You must remember or have learned about the mining strikes there, right chum? Miner's Strike 1984-1985

Born during that one, actually.

I'm not sure how that's supposed to disagree with what I said. Men founded the modern trade unions, and have always dominated the most unionised work-forces and have always formed a disproportionate part of the membership of trade unions. Obviously if they go on strike they're going to have the support of their wives, not just personally but also as they share economic interests. But nothing you've posted there disagrees with either men having pioneered unionisation, friendly societies and so on, or with women today having a massively larger number of women's organisations than there are men's organisations.

[Canadian_watcher]

I'm not sure how that's supposed to disagree with what I said.

Well, in the modern era men were the first to form trade unions for mutual economic activity, but women tend to monopolise collective organisation explicitly by sex, as a sex, for that sex.

wrong.

see: The pickett: Tasmanian mine workers defend their job " Women didn't work in the mine yet women won the thing for the men. And yes, most of them had a financial interest since a lot of the men workers were their husbands, but that makes zero difference because there *is* no difference in the motivation of union activity no matter who is in the union.

see also: Strikes of the 70s and 80s: the Invisible Role of Women Which tells of three miners strikes in the US where women organized for men.

and this more recent one from Jolly Old England (and Wales and Scotland) You must remember or have learned about the mining strikes there, right chum? Miner's Strike 1984-1985

[wintler2]

...Men, let me ask you something:
Are you aware that a space in which to speak about the cultural pressures on you is in the things-you-badly-want-and-can-easily-have-if-you-wish-no-one-will-punish-you-for-it-it's-perfectly-okay-and-natural category, not the other one?

It might be perfectly okay and natural in the truest sense, but that doesn't mean no-one will punish me for it. I think there are probable short-term costs for many men in 'examining cultural pressures'/questioning patriarchy, primarily loss of respect and rank and consequent exploitation or condescension by other men and women.
Without personal time and space and a peer group that explicitly and actively supports such questioning, i've seen men experience such thoughts (usually brought on by abrupt failure of coping strategies) as a personal crisis, something wrong with them rather than with their society. The branding of most emotions as feminine and weak is one of the great lock-ins of this abusive culture, hiding the keys of the gilt chains patriarchy gives men to wear.

[Plutonia]

Question:

Men, let me ask you something:

Are you aware that a space in which to speak about the cultural pressures on you is in the things-you-badly-want-and-can-easily-have-if-you-wish-no-one-will-punish-you-for-it-it's-perfectly-okay-and-natural category, not the other one?

Because it is. Some things are. Lots of things, really. You might have a few others misfiled, too, come to think of it.


^^ That's just a shot in the dark on my part, wrt what in the male psyche prevents men from speaking of stuff like that even when they badly want to. And it may well be (IOW, probably is) totally wrong. However, it's kindly meant, fwiw.

Answer 1:

If you're asking me that question directly my answer would be, well yes obviously. It should be fucking obvious to everyone.

But I can only speak for myself ... one thing I will say is that if there is a form of punishment for that it comes from other men. But they're being dickheads so it doesn't really count in this discussion cos its not what you were getting at is it?

Answer 2:

I for one don't like talking. Also, it's much easier not to do something which is quite likely to lead to ridicule, especially from women. Also more than ridicule, feminist political groups generally opposing any sort of men-only club. So, only rich men have anything which excludes women because only they can get away with it. Golf clubs can keep out women, the freemasons can keep out women, the Working Mens' Clubs can't keep out women because they get complaints from women and pickets with signs and angry letters in the newspapers and so on.

Its easy for people to take for granted how unoppressed they actually are when confronted by some inconveniences.

[Canadian_watcher]

and Wintler just gave us Answer 3 ^^.

I believe that this whole area of inquiry is really important. keep talking, guys.

[Plutonia]

and Wintler just gave us Answer 3 ^^.

I believe that this whole area of inquiry is really important. keep talking, guys.

You know what? I had no idea.

Funny that women have been struggling to have their voice heard and the men, (who seem to dominate in the voices heard department,) don't even try to be heard OUT OF FEAR.

It's too ghastly.

[Plutonia]

I mean the guys were talking about their stuff up thread, but that was in the context of women's stuff. How familiar does that sound?

[Canadian_watcher]

I mean the guys were talking about their stuff up thread, but that was in the context of women's stuff. How familiar does that sound?

Yes, but it's different now than it was then, because before it was kind of a dick measuring contest (for lack of a better term, lol) where it was an "experience of injustice" competition. Also, there was a lot of blame going around with some men really blaming feminism for .. well.. pretty much everything. And I think it's difficult for men not to take it personally when women blame 'the patriarchy.'

There need be no comparison, imo. We can each share our stories and it doesn't have to be adversarial. We have a common enemy. What culture does to women and what it does to men are related and intertwined deeply ... always have been and always will be.

[Plutonia]

I mean the guys were talking about their stuff up thread, but that was in the context of women's stuff. How familiar does that sound?

Yes, but it's different now than it was then, because before it was kind of a dick measuring contest (for lack of a better term, lol) where it was an "experience of injustice" competition. Also, there was a lot of blame going around with some men really blaming feminism for .. well.. pretty much everything. And I think it's difficult for men not to take it personally when women blame 'the patriarchy.'

There need be no comparison, imo. We can each share our stories and it doesn't have to be adversarial. We have a common enemy. What culture does to women and what it does to men are related and intertwined deeply ... always have been and always will be.

Yes. We're kind of set up to feel attacked, i think.

But what I was really alluding too, was that one of the first phenomenon that feminists confronted was the conditioning that made them only able to speak about themselves in relation to men, if you see what I mean?

[charlie meadows]

While we're waiting for the men to bare their souls, I'd like to ask you...

In your readings on Women's issues, who in the literature if anyone attends to the relative evolutionary bottleneck in the birth canal and its possible ramifications on notions of masculinity and femininity and et cetera.

[Canadian_watcher]

But what I was really alluding too, was that one of the first phenomenon that feminists confronted was the conditioning that made them only able to speak about themselves in relation to men, if you see what I mean?

Yes, sorry! I see that now.

__________________


By the way- I've been trying to think of a song for all of you wonderful souls...everyone who has stuck with this thread and with me, too, even through my awful moments... that will tell you how much I've appreciated your refusal to give up and also let you know that you have inspired me. All I can find that have that message are either love songs or boppy pop songs though and that'd be weird. So I'm just going to share one of my faves: