What constitutes Misogyny?

[barracuda]

God! You people are so full of shit!!

Whatever you might think of the opinions voiced in this thread, the statement above adds no value at all. Please refrain from directing profanity at your fellow posters, everybody.

Alas, this thread is a lost cause.

Those are the best kind.

[compared2what?]

Thanks lyrimal.
.
I am trying to invite people to think about misogyny in new ways, rather than demand that they see things my way. I mean, I really don't understand it myself, so I am learning as I'm going and don't actually know where I'm going to end up. I'm doing this because I really care about our predicament and I orient towards practical solutions and I don't see good outcomes from simply shaming men who haven't abused and raped women by lumping all of them in with those who have. In my experience, most men actually care about their wives, sisters, mothers and daughters.

Plutonia --

In one way or another, that must be at least the twelfth time that you've chosen to lead by distinguishing yourself as a woman who doescare about misogyny but doesn't shame and/or blame men for it, thereby shaming, blaming and scapegoating (by my rough estimate) EVERY WOMAN ON THIS THREAD AND EVERY WOMAN IN THE WORLD..

However, since I already wasn't counting 32 or so pages ago when I first directly called your attention to it...

That's not true at all. I'm totally down with Maya's sentiments and have been attempting, in my way, to remind people that men are human beings too- that we are in this mess together. That we are not going to get out of it without each other.

If you go back to the beginning pages of the thread, you'll see that point being made repeatedly by the ladies to no avail whatsoever for....I don't know, maybe twenty or thirty pages? More?

Misogyny is societal, it has no gender. Furthermore, it has adverse consequences for all people, male and female, both directly and indirectly. No rational, non-sociopathic, well-intentioned and honest person who considered the matter for two consecutive seconds could possibly think otherwise.

But it should kind of go without saying that the most adverse direct consequences of society's fear and hatred of women accrue primarily to women. If you don't identify what they are and examine them, you can't even define the problem, let alone solve it.

That's why we're not really talking about what constitutes misogyny anymore. I'm not complaining, btw. Nobody's perfect, and no gender is unilaterally at fault for the conflicts on this thread. By the same token, though, your implication -- ie, that women have been stubbornly insisting that we're not all in this together -- isn't really merited by the record, I don't think.

Sex and sexuality are sensitive subjects. People get huffy about and are easily wounded by them. That's a crying shame, imo. In large part, it's a societal one that's got a lot of overlap with misogyny (also imo, obviously). All god's children got sexuality, it should be the most innocent thing in the world not the least, if you ask me. That's mostly why I'm a Wimminist, as a matter of fact.

Anyway. I agree with you that we're all in this together and should all be sympathetic to one another's issues. You might not have even been finger-pointing, ftm. Could be that I'm just sensitive.

Murky waters.

...I don't really know. It could be more. Or it could be less. But given that:

(a) the number of women whom you feel it would be fair to say are posting to this thread for reasons other than that they really care about our predicament and are oriented towards practical solutions would have to be notably higher than zero in order for it a distinction worth mentioning;

(b) the number of women posting to this thread -- and/or just hanging around idly anywhere on planet fucking earth, if you want to expand the field a little bit -- whom you feel it would be fair to say "see good outcomes from simply shaming men who haven't abused and raped women by lumping all of them in with those who have" would have to be notably, demonstrably, and indisputably higher than zero in order for that not to be an ugly slur on the female character in general at best and misogyny at worst;

(c) you do the equivalent in every post you write; and

(d) those posts are very, very frequently bracketed by those of other female posters who are neither saying nor showing any sign whatsoever that in their collective experiences, most men actually care about despise their wives, sisters, mothers and daughters

...ONCE WOULD BE TOO GODDAMN MANY.

I'm serious, girlfriend. The next time you feel that good-hearted impulse to say, "Wait, don't blame him/her...," you might want to hold off on following it until you've had the chance to....Well, you know: Look around a little. See whether maybe anyone in the vicinity is being scapegoated. And if so, whom. Because people who really care about our predicament are too few and far between that we can afford for any of them to go astray following a good-hearted but utterly misguided and unexamined impulse. That's only fun until somebody gets hurt.

Please, I implore you, if you wish to continue to make the case that women and/or feminists are anything/everything you say/suggest that they are, take a moment to muster up some data -- or even just a quote from another poster to the thread! -- in support of what you're saying/suggesting. And if you can't do that, quit saying/suggesting it.

Okay?

Thanks.

[Joe Hillshoist]

For all general conversational purposes, women talk about men when they're not around the exact same way that women talk about men to their faces, at least in my experience.

Yes. I've been told right to my face by women that as a man I must inevitably be an idiot. Men certainly wouldn't say that sort of thing about women unless around people they knew to be like-minded.

Yes they would, and to their faces. I've heard them.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Oh and for what its worth it isn't women shaming every man on the planet by lumping them in with men who rape and pillage.

Its men. By their actions as rapists and pillagists.

[Canadian_watcher]

WAKE FOREST LAW REVIEW: Equality-Based Perspectives on the Free-Speech Norm, 21st century Considerations – Hate Speech, Equality and the State of Canadian Law

The promotion of hatred is not only globalized, it is multifaceted. It is like a virus, systematically spreading through all major aspects of life – politics, religion, and culture.

...

In the political realm, hate speech promotes the denial of or assault upon a group’s right as a people to self-determination, attacking whatever is the core of their self-definition at any moment in time. A common form of this kind of speech is the denial to a people of their past, especially when that past includes violations of their fundamental freedoms. Holocaust denial fits into this category.

…

Another motivating factor for sexual minorities to rely increasingly on speech limitations has been the exponential increase in the disseminators of cyber-hate to silence members of vulnerable minorities, effectively knocking them out of the competition in the marketplace of ideas. (46) One example was the forced closure of a bulletin board set up to honour Matthew Shepard, a university student in the United States who was tortured and left to die because he was gay. (47) The memorial bulletin board was inundated with so many hate messages that expressions of sympathy and support by gay activists and mourners were overwhelmed. The attack was so effective that the supporters of Matthew Shepard requested that the bulletin board be taken down.(48)

…

All forms of hate propaganda are legitimized when there is silence – in the academy, parliaments, amongst public intellectuals, doctors, lawyers, other elites, and in the human rights movement.

Many excuses are offered, not the least of which is the desire to remain “neutral,” as was the excuse of the United Nations in the preventable Rwandan genocide. But as has been pointed out by many others, ‘neutrality in the face of evil – whether of individuals or states – is acquiescence in, if not complicity with, evil itself (139)

– Kathleen Mahoney, faculty of Law, University of Calgary

For a wonderful overview of why women should not be protected from hate speech, see this: http://www.angryharry.com/eshatespeechagainstwomen.htm
[/quote]

[Canadian_watcher]

Warning against hate speech from the admins at a message board that is usually considered "beneath us":

It has become apparent that our beloved ******* has either become the target for or an easy mark for those who would seek to spew their demented hatred for their fellow man based on nothing more than religion, ethnicity or personal preferences...

Again...

We have seen an increase in hate speech couched in "news articles", subtle innuendo hidden behind professed disagreement with government policies and blatant, outright ignorance spewed forth for all to see.

...

The most sickening examples of this are seen when certain individuals appear to be joining in the chorus of protest against the evil that men do only to spread their own hate to the unsuspecting by introducing it a little at a time and couching it in the buzz words and rally cries of the day.

Consider this post as FAIR WARNING that the staff and owners of ********** will be following the T.A.C. to the letter and we are implementing a ZERO TOLERANCE policy on ALL hate speech.

What has transpired up to now is water under the bridge and the slate is wiped clean for one and all. From this moment forward however, there will be no mulligans, no passes and no exceptions.

If you are found to be spreading hate rather than discussing the policies, actions and world events your account will post banned immediately and your membership will be reviewed by staff.

It is our sincere hope that those who have come here only to spread this most vile of human traits will see there is no room for them here and move on and those who were only caught up in the emotional whirl wind caused by these agents of ignorance will return to their decent and rational selves.

[JackRiddler]

.

I think some people here may be confusing shaming with the feeling that one is being shamed. The two are distinct, although they sometimes go together, often even for good cause.

.

[Plutonia]

Oh and for what its worth it isn't women shaming every man on the planet by lumping them in with men who rape and pillage.

Its men. By their actions as rapists and pillagists.

Well, that it true Joe and I think men feel that deeply. That's my guess, but maybe you could maybe speak to that.

But I think I've been misunderstood, because I wasn't fingering women for shaming men, I was responding to barracuda and Jack, who seemed to be saying that in their experience men don't care about women (in rather shaming terms) and attributing universality to their experiences. So, I probably should have called them out by name, but I was in a hurry.

But, this is where the cultural differences might be coming into play. I don't say that as a fact, just asking a question- could it be?

Elaborating here:

Jeff has given us a rule to follow which I think usefully limits our discussion. Within that context, there is a moderating "dominant voice", if you will, that seeks to constrain the discussion further to within “acceptable” parameters.

Isn’t it possible that those parameters reflect an unacknowledged cultural bias?

At this point we are reduced to me, Morgan, Joe, C_W, c2w?, barracuda and Jack, as the dominant voices so I’ll just talk about us: Me and Morgan are weirdos, he a Yorkie (?) Xtian, me an autist so we are culturally distinct; C_W is Canadian; Joe is an Ozzie; and that leaves c2w?, barracuda and Jack, who I think are all urban American – is that right?

You three actually have real power here, as social leaders at the very least; you seem to have shared values, and you are also a very formidable line-up. I’ll tell you that I find you intimidating singly, nevermind all together.

But I have different thoughts about this issue, not I think offensive ones, and I suppose I have no other forge to go to where I can pound them into shape. But in order for me to express my thoughts, I have had to be exceedingly careful in order to do so. I have had to be sort of superhumanly gracious. And Morgon too, I doubt would be here now except for his extraordinary implacability.

I mean think about that. That is not a characteristic of even a moderated discussion, between equals.

[Canadian_watcher]

Jeff has given us a rule to follow which I think usefully limits our discussion. Within that context, there is a moderating "dominant voice", if you will, that seeks to constrain the discussion further to within “acceptable” parameters.
...
But in order for me to express my thoughts, I have had to be exceedingly careful in order to do so. I have had to be sort of superhumanly gracious. And Morgon too, I doubt would be here now except for his extraordinary implacability.

I mean think about that. That is not a characteristic of even a moderated discussion, between equals.

Which rule is so impinging on your ability to express yourself the way you would like? What can't you say?

[barracuda]

I had thought all along, Plutonia, that your graciousness was an aspect of your persona and personality, rather than something forced upon you by the distinctions of the others on the thread. If it is not, then you ought, by all means, allow yourself any freedom of expression you feel is currently cconstrained, in the interest of moving this thing along, if not for your personal comfort.

As for the implacability of Mr. Morgan, I think the history of his participation here has proven that some of us are willing to go to a variety of lengths in order to preserve his voice whether we happen to agree with him or not, or even whether we find him sometimes offensive.

I was responding to barracuda and Jack, who seemed to be saying that in their experience men don't care about women (in rather shaming terms) and attributing universality to their experiences.

That is certainly not what I meant to be heard saying. My latest remarks we're simply to support Riddler's rather humdrum observations about how he had been met in his life by men's behaviors in the light of preclareus' challenge. I think men care about women very much, but that earnestness of emotion may not always spring from a place of empathy and concern for women, or for themselves for that matter, a difference which some of the research you've posted seems to point toward as well.

[Project Willow]

I'm with C2W here, Plutonia. I get that you don't like me and you're probably going to like me even less now, because I don't buy this cultural comparison for a second. I think you're playing cards to avoid some butthurt.

I have had to be sort of superhumanly gracious. And Morgon too, I doubt would be here now except for his extraordinary implacability.

Super-humanly gracious to allow women to post about their experiences of injustice? I don't post in this thread regularly because it's a source of re-traumatization. It's a constant reminder of how fucking soul crushing it is to speak out. Morgan's ad nauseam denials of injustice towards women are a re-traumatization. That others converse with and encourage him is a re-traumatization and an affront to my very being.

You can go on and on trying to figure out how to move power or people. My goddess, how many avenues to nowhere have been paved already? If you want to do that, that's fine, but don't stop me from what I want to do. Ultimately, I'm not going to ask anyone's permission, I'm not going to suck some guy's dick just so I can tell him he's an asshole. At some point, I'll stare down the almost certain prospect of re-traumatization, stand up, and plainly and clearly state my truth, as a woman. Period. That's what I thought this thread was about.

[barracuda]

I'll admit, sometimes it seems as if steadfast implacability in the face of the sincere pain of others is a second cousin to the banality of evil.

[compared2what?]

When you punish, do so with regret, as in, "I'm really sorry I have to do this to you, but you need to pay for what you did,"

Oh my god. You should never even say that to another human being, let alone a child, ever. Do not act with calm and conscious punitive intent towards children, ever, under any circumstances.

rather than saying angrily, "You broke the rules! You have to pay the consequences!"

Neither the words "You have to pay the consequences!" nor the sentiment they express when meant as spoken have any proper place anywhere in the whole entire realm of human interpersonal interaction. Do not even think them.

Seriously. If you're truly incapable of conceiving of either that or the will-to-punishment-on-purpose thing as inherently emotionally disturbed, you really probably shouldn't be raising children at all. Try your best to love yourself and others. Allowing others to love you is also a good idea. But if you can't handle it, it's not mandatory. Just go to a safe place and relax, it's all right. Just in the remote event that it's too late for you to reflect on the wisdom of those cautions in the fullness of time and arrange your affairs accordingly, though:

Do not tell a child toward whom you're intentionally acting punitively that you're sorry he or she forced you to hurt him or her, ffs. What kind of a monster are you, anyway? Please get a grip on yourself. You'd be better off angrily responding, "You broke the rules!" and apologizing for losing your temper later. That's obviously not, like, the aspirational ideal of childcare. But they and you are only human, after all. Just stay away from that wrathful-and-avenging god stuff, and I'm almost postive that you'll manage to muddle through somehow. I mean, that's what everybody else does, and we're all here. See? It'll be okay. You're fine. I promise.

[vanlose kid]

stephen morgan, an impression:



*

[Canadian_watcher]

And here's a repeat film plug for "Brief Interviews With Hideous Men" -- written and directed by a pair of male humans!

.

I'm happy you mentioned this again, Jack, because I did watch it after your initial recommendation but by then it was so long past I didn't think I'd get the chance to comment on it.

Keeping in mind that I might have missed some nuance because I mostly only listened to it and didn't *see* much of it, I thought it was an excellent exploration of some of the darker attitudes men hold regarding the place of women in the world. The two scenes which stay with me most are the one where the student verbally attacks the professor and the scene where that guy from 'The Office' basically excuses his own infidelity by actively hating on both his girlfriend and the woman he slept with (although he believes he is idolizing the woman he slept with, he is actually betraying his bent attitudes towards women). It was a chilling scene. I wonder if I can find it in isolation and post it...

I can't sleep tonight due to sciatic pain/numbness so I'll go hunt around...