What constitutes Misogyny?

[Canadian_watcher]

.
that was easy:

[JackRiddler]

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.

I object. If you're referring to my post of yesterday, the one that has caused the most reactions since, then please read it again. I said nothing at all about whether men care about women. Zip and de nada. (Generally speaking, men do care about women.) Nor did I aim to "shame men." I made a list of things that I have experienced myself, or directly witnessed others experiencing: everyday violent behaviors of many men (a minority in number but who act with a sense of privilege or license as men). Behaviors that I have not personally witnessed from women, because women only very rarely engage in such behaviors relative to men. I stand by the assertion that this catalogue is typical, and that most people can come up with a similar a list of their own, and unfortunately much worse. I have trouble believing those who assert otherwise are not in denial, or disingenuous. I have also said these are the fruits of macho culture, which encourages and condones and trivializes the everyday violence. Not that macho culture is the single cause; but it's the environment within which these individual acts (and be they of a minority) proliferate.

I appreciate your thoughtful and measured approach, including where we disagree, and ask you to feel no intimidation. This is a discussion space where sometimes fighting words will be spoken, and rightly so, but I hope with the occasional authentic synthesis as outcome.

Honestly, you hold your own.

.

[JackRiddler]

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...

The one that kills me is the son of the bathroom attendant, however.

O terrible, what have I done? Have I really devolved so completely from my younger self that I now recommend a movie version before the book? (And in this case, I actually read the book before the movie, although the latter is a faithful and able adaptation.)



David Foster Wallace, RIP.

.

[Canadian_watcher]

The one that kills me is the son of the bathroom attendant, however.
.

that was by far the best scene in the movie.. best delivery, anyway.

I just read a review of the movie... the writer seems to believe that in the book the scene I posted above was written as a moving love story!? Did you read it that way? (by the way I recognize how absolutely terribly acted that scene is. I mean come on. It's embarrassing.)

[compared2what?]

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.

First of all, since we're all capable of speaking for ourselves here, including Stephen, and we're all responsible for what we say, including you, I'm not really sure what he or any of that whole crowd of defensive and offensive linemen you've got running hither and yon elsewhere in your post are doing there. But they seem to be obscuring your view of the state of play on the field if providing encapsulated summaries of their positions with respect to one another as you perceive them struck you as responsive to what I wrote. They're not. So I'm going to overlook them.

You're not under any obligation to be sort of superhumanly gracious. Therefore, you have not in fact "had to be' sort of superhumanly gracious. You either chose to be superhumanly gracious when you would both have preferred and were free to be ordinarily courteous -- or frankly hostile, or candidly contemptuous, or bawdily outspoken, or [whatever-ily whatever-you-tell-me-it's-your-repressed-personal-and-social truth-not-mine] -- or one or more people coerced you into being sort of superhumanly gracious by using occult tactics that only you and they are in a position to perceive.

If the former, you're just going to have to work that out with yourself. If the latter, while Jeff or one of the mods would probably be better equipped to protect you than I would, you can certainly PM me if you want to. I'll absolutely help you in any way that I can. And I'm not joking, even a little bit.

Likewise, as a matter of the same principle, if I've impinged on your freedom to express your different thoughts on this issue in any way that I don't know about -- ie, in some way other than legitimately disagreeing with them on stated grounds -- please tell me. Because I would want to stop doing that, pronto. Also, please feel free to address me in any terms that aren't actively prohibited, abusive or intentionally-punitive-for-sport. I might take it personally, because I am, after all, a person. I won't take it out on you personally, or even want to. That's a guarantee. I don't like abusing or punishing others. I do take requests, if I can understand them. I'm far from superhuman. If you cut me, I bleed. And all that stuff is beside the point, anyway. You got a right. Speak your mind.

It would also be nice if you addressed the substance of the post in which I objected to your repeated unmerited and derogatory implications about me, female posters to this thread other than SLAD, unnamed "feminists," and women in general.

Because I do have a problem with them. I've already stated it twice directly in plain terms, both graciously and then somewhat-less-graciously. I've also approached it quite a number of times indirectly, by pointing to some number less than the total sum of flat-out factual and logical fallacies on which your views were based. Amiably enough, at the very least, because that part is both spontaneous and genuine. And maybe even graciously, though I wouldn't be the best judge of my own graciousness, obviously.

But I'd be happy to state it again, if it's not getting through to you. As a matter of fact, if you want and/or need me to, I can even compile a comprehensive annotated list of examples and present them to you in itemized list form. Whatever you like, your response will be appreciated, no lie.

[Plutonia]

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?

Hi C_W. Welcome back.

It's not a rule, per se. It's more a case of being aware of the mines in the field and being careful not to set them off. But I guess, I've said now the things that I felt inhibited from saying. Funny C_W, it was your post about all the people who aren't speaking that inspired me to go there.

And, as it happens, life is intruding so it looks like I'll be withdrawing from participating for a while. Maybe a long while, I don't know.

And barracuda, although graciousness is an aspect of who I am, it's not the only aspect. Since my experience has been that everything I've said, I've been saying into a space hostile to me, I haven't felt that I could express myself casually or freely. I flattened myself out into one dimension just so that I could move the discussion forward, past the bickering.

One more thing. If I were able to stay, I'd probably look into how stress effects people's ability to empathize, because when we are stressed we operate more out of our primitive reptilian brain and I'm guessing that that makes a difference.

Anyway, I'm sorry to leave you all hanging. Carry on as best you can without me.

[wallflower]

I'm flummoxed by the recent postings, not sure what to make of them, can't think what to say.

Canandian Watcher wrote:

I just read a review of the movie... the writer seems to believe that in the book the scene I posted above was written as a moving love story!? Did you read it that way?

That's easy to answer, Goodness NO!

[compared2what?]

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.

You've made the same suggestion -- ie, that men are being unfairly shamed -- in every post you've written. So "repeatedly" does seem like an accurate word, in this case. I pointed it out 32-plus pages ago, ffs. Sometimes you finger an ostensibly gender-neutral proxy -- ie, the media, the Werther Effect, the underrecognized-due-to-falseness equivalency of the rape-prevalence rate between male children and adult women -- but most of the time you stop just short of attributing explicit agency to the shamers and withdraw to a lofty position of vaguely stated personal distaste for the nominally divisive forces of feminism and identity politics. IIRC, you have not conceded that there's so much as one woman anywhere on earth who's ever been oppressed at any point in time or space with any very convincing degree of specificity, excluding yourself from time to time.

But since that's for being a non-white, non-urban original thinker with an ASD whose different thoughts about misogyny don't include hating men, I think it's a fair exclusion.

I also don't think you're in a tenable position wrt prevaricating about what you said or what you meant. Your implication is, was and always has been both clear and consistent.

Incidentally, as far as I've noticed, nobody has been discriminating against you for being a non-urban Canadian autie of Native descent, or even responding to you with any perceptible awareness of it. IIRC, the subject has arisen solely in the context of your clear implication that they have.

Furthermore...

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?

...while I do live in a city and am an American citizen, I didn't appreciate the implication that I was an obliviously privileged high-hatter the first time you clearly made it, back when I was being all elite and materialistic about poverty from my implicitly luxurious perch far, far above the world of soil and toil, which was also 30-plus pages ago. Because it's fucking insulting. It also happens to be totally undeserved and untrue in more ways than you could possibly want to know, which is a happy coincidence, since I definitely don't want to tell you about them. However, fwiw, life for me has never been any kind of fucking joyride. I do my crying in the rain. And I'd very much regard it as a favor if you didn't use the wiggle room that provides you to insinuate otherwise, Plu, for real. You have no idea. So have a heart, okay? Thanks.

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.

I have no power here other than the force of my arguments. None. I am not only not a social leader, I'm a heavily trolled, openly disliked, routinely attacked poster with a lot of enemies and absolutely no regular troops or allegiances of any kind.

I'm very fond of and respect quite a few posters and/or usernames on the board, including some of the trolls who fucking hate me. But I was quite frankly mystified by myriadsmallmeadowslet'sleaveitatthat's reference to my "friends." It's not like I have an entourage of them, even counting the imaginary ones. Take a moment to review the matter and I'm sure you'll see the truth of that. I believe that Jack and barracuda are generally well thought of, however. Perhaps not to the point that a reasonable person would be intimidated by it, but still. I will give you that much.

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.

I have.

Do you ever get the feeling that you've been misunderstood? Because I do. In fact, I think I have been. Here. By you. And it never hurts to remind yourself that you're not alone, I find. When you're not.

[Stephen Morgan]

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.

I knew all that raping and pillaging would come back to bite me eventually.

Or, in other words, there is no link between rapists and other men. The link you see is entirely in your perception, and as such the only one bearing blame is yourself, not those you perceive as villains.

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.

Yep, feminism sure is common these days.

.

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.

.

The meaning of communication is in the effect that it has.

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.

I can't tell you how relieved I was when Project Willow put me on ignore. Always felt like I was hurting her feelings when I posted, not that such a thing would stop me posting the truth of the matter, it's not like I was PMing it to her, but it did make me feel like I was treading on egg shells. Not that I expect any of the "men are rapists and pillagers because men are rapists and pillagers" brigade to have similar feelings, mind.

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

Yeah, but you're a male human, how is a couple of lads writing about unpleasant men any different from your usual stuff?

You know, some of us aren't sexist, we don't consider which sex the author of a work was to be important. Just the content.

stephen morgan, an impression:



*

I'm more the same than ever.

[compared2what?]

I guess I was a step or two behind. My apologies.

[Stephen Morgan]

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.

Nah, they didn't mention women. Their usual spiel is that men are bad, at most women play a role of props for the argument.

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?

Bingo.

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?

Couldn't resist.

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.

From earlier in thread:
Me: feminist reign of terror
Someone else: WTF

(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;

Well, there's conscious intent and there's why they're really here, which I think is to prevent themselves acquiescing to the truth without defending their ingrained feminist superstitions.

(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;

Well, there's doing something because you "see good outcomes from it" and there's doing it irregardless.

(a minority in number but who act with a sense of privilege or license as men)

I believe violence to be borne from a psychology of alienation and subordination, not from dominance and privilege. In most cases, anyway. As the majority of violent men are from the majority of men, not the privileged few, this is even more so. There is simply no privilege of licence to being a man when interacting with women.

Violence is about power, you haven't got any and you want some.

[wintler2]

..Or, in other words, there is no link between rapists and other men.

Of neccesity, [male] rapists arrive via virgin alien adult birth, commit the crime, and then evaporate into another dimension. They are not drawn from, surrounded by, sons and fathers of, mates with, coworkers of, or fellow drinkers of men who are not rapists. The two groups never mix, have no common membership and have absolutely nothing in common, and the evidence for this is that stephen says it and will keep saying it. I blame the UK education system.

[Joe Hillshoist]

I believe violence to be borne from a psychology of alienation and subordination, not from dominance and privilege. In most cases, anyway. As the majority of violent men are from the majority of men, not the privileged few, this is even more so. There is simply no privilege of licence to being a man when interacting with women.

Violence is about power, you haven't got any and you want some.

The Krays were violent and powerful.

They had power tho.

Pinochet had power, and used violence against his enemies.

[Canadian_watcher]

I believe violence to be borne from a psychology of alienation and subordination, not from dominance and privilege. In most cases, anyway.

Violence is about power, you haven't got any and you want some.

Then why do so many women in our matriarchy beat their children and husbands?

[vanlose kid]

The one that kills me is the son of the bathroom attendant, however.
.

that was by far the best scene in the movie.. best delivery, anyway.

I just read a review of the movie... the writer seems to believe that in the book the scene I posted above was written as a moving love story!? Did you read it that way? (by the way I recognize how absolutely terribly acted that scene is. I mean come on. It's embarrassing.)

having trouble with that one, i mean yes, his acting is terrible, but in what sense?

the character in the film is putting on an act and in that context it's a terrible and embarrassing act, especially when he gets tizzy over her cold grin or whatever.

but if that's the case doesn't it mean that the actor's acting of bad acting is pretty good acting?

*