What constitutes Misogyny?

[Canadian_watcher]

VK - I tried to think of it in terms of the actor's dilemma - how to act like you're trying to pretend to be sincere without sounding like you
A. *are* sincere; or
B. can't act.
So I give him some leeway on that..
But there's something so... poorly timed ...? in his delivery. Or maybe it was his direction (he also took that chair)

[vanlose kid]

...

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

...

that was me, actually. and the comment, such as it is, still stands. i mean: WTF?

you want to call that debate then fine. i still call it something of an extraordinary claim, to put it mildly.

*

[vanlose kid]

VK - I tried to think of it in terms of the actor's dilemma - how to act like you're trying to pretend to be sincere without sounding like you
A. *are* sincere; or
B. can't act.
So I give him some leeway on that..
But there's something so... poorly timed ...? in his delivery. Or maybe it was his direction (he also took that chair)

seeing as the scene seems entirely improvised and cut together (looks that way to me) maybe the director chose the quirky off beat takes precisely because the timing was wrong?

*

[vanlose kid]

...

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 the highlighted bit, is that like an attempt at fact or are you just trying to piss people off? is this like a contribution towards the "debate"? i mean, who on this thread or board for that matter holds the view you're assigning in very broad terms here? care to enlighten me? or do you think it's so obvious bordering on the self-evident that you couldn't be bothered?

*

[Canadian_watcher]

seeing as the scene seems entirely improvised and cut together (looks that way to me) maybe the director chose the quirky off beat takes precisely because the timing was wrong?

*

ahh, you see? I didn't watch, I only listened with the occasional glance at the screen. Watching it back I get your point. Either way the monologue is .. well it almost made me sick. I was fascinated though.. the messages in it, to me, were:
women are objects to be conquered
women should love to be conquered
men hate women who resist being conquered
men love women who accept being conquered - the more they can learn to love their oppressor the better, and
men hate themselves for conquering (but not enough to stop)

[vanlose kid]

seeing as the scene seems entirely improvised and cut together (looks that way to me) maybe the director chose the quirky off beat takes precisely because the timing was wrong?

*

ahh, you see? I didn't watch, I only listened with the occasional glance at the screen. Watching it back I get your point. Either way the monologue is .. well it almost made me sick. I was fascinated though.. the messages in it, to me, were:
women are objects to be conquered
women should love to be conquered
men hate women who resist being conquered
men love women who accept being conquered - the more they can learn to love their oppressor the better, and
men hate themselves for conquering (but not enough to stop)

yeah, you have to walk around barefoot after watching just to get your toes to flex again. among other things.

i had this voice inside me going "give up dude. this is just wrong."


*

[Canadian_watcher]

yeah, you have to walk around barefoot after watching just to get your toes to flex again. among other things.

i had this voice inside me going "give up dude. this is just wrong."


*

I wanted her to walk out right about the time he said, 'she was pretty.' I couldn't have sat there and listened to that!

[vanlose kid]

yeah, you have to walk around barefoot after watching just to get your toes to flex again. among other things.

i had this voice inside me going "give up dude. this is just wrong."


*

I wanted her to walk out right about the time he said, 'she was pretty.' I couldn't have sat there and listened to that!

that was the scary part. i haven't seen the movie (apart from that clip) or read the book. and i couldn't help fearing that she'd buy his schtick. complete "horror show".

*

[vanlose kid]

*

i'm going to do something here that i went back on [url=http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?p=392190#p392190earlier in the thread[/url], which is to post some things from [url=http://www.heartless-bitches.com/index.shtml]heartless bitches international[/url], because the original site owner explicitly asks that one not do it, but i think it's relevant to this thread and i really like it, so i'm invoking this.

What is Misogyny?
by Jim

A year ago when I first stumbled onto the Heartless Bitches web site, I didn’t really know what misogyny was, although I thought I did. Misogyny, as defined in my dictionary, is "the hatred of women," which seems simple enough, but what was not clear to me was why certain behaviors or characteristics were being defined as related to misogyny. For example, why is objectifying women’s bodies considered misogynistic? Why are "nice guys" described on this site labeled misogynists? "Hate" implies scorn, hostility or animosity. Although I understood that objectifying women is wrong, it seemed like "hate" was too strong a word here, after all, many guys claim to "love" or "appreciate" women. The "love" they claim to have seemed faked, but it is still a far cry from "hate."

I started to do more research on this, and came across some interesting ideas. One particularly valuable resource was a book called "The Centerfold Syndrome," by Gary Brooks. The author states that while objectification "calls for men to become observers, it also calls for women to become the observed. Women become objects as men become objectifiers." He goes on to explain that women are expected to accept the role of stimulators of men’s visual interest. This visual interest focuses on a two dimensional view of women, one that values the physical characteristics of women while ignoring personal character or any of the inner complexities that are inherent in human beings. When I understood this, I realized that when I hear someone claim how much they "love" women, they are really talking about love for a two dimensional view of women and the women who pursue that ideal. They are not talking about women as they really are.

This all made a lot of sense, but I still had not made the connection to the word "hate." Eventually I made the connection when I found this website. The author summed up his reason for creating the site and his dislike of women in one simple sentence: "I hate women because I want their attention and they won’t give me any." So what a misogynist truly loves is the shallow image of women that exists only in one’s mind and is illustrated in society in such things as pornography or mainstream media that espouses that ideal. The hatred is directed at real women, for not living up to a misogynist’s expectations of women being easy to control and for not providing adequate stimulation for men’s interest.

Once I figured this out, many things about misogyny became clear. A misogynistic value system would favor women who put out and are easy to control. Misogynists would talk about women in a dehumanized way, i.e., nice legs, great ass, etc, as if women were nothing more than a collection of body parts. Dating and relationships would become a game of manipulation fraught with various seedy techniques and ploys designed to get women to have sex. Something else I noticed as I browsed the web is that although misogynists try to control women, they are ironically dependent on women for validation in front of other men and society. This dependence is disempowering and only adds to the anger and resentment misogynists feel towards women.

But why are "nice guys" misogynists? In the book "The Gift of Fear," Gavin DeBecker defines "niceness" as a "strategy of social interaction" and not evidence of innate goodness. So what he is saying is that being "nice" merely means your behavior is not offensive but does not mean your motives are automatically pure or good. Being a "nice guy" has been discussed elsewhere so there is no need to go into great detail here, but the bottom line is that trying to "be nice" or to use one’s social charm to achieve one’s social or sexual objectives is just as manipulative as anything else. The details are different, but what is at the core is the same.

It should also be pointed out that in addition to hurting women, misogyny also hurts men. By objectifying women, men are also objectifying themselves. Dating and sex becomes a contest as misogynists try to achieve high degrees of "success" with women, with success being defined as receiving attention from the most desirable women. Emotions are repressed, personal growth is stunted and true intimacy becomes impossible.

Although at this time I had answered my original questions, I had raised many more questions and problems in the process. First and foremost, I began to reflect on things I have said or done in the past, and I realized that some of it I am now not too proud of. In a lot of ways I had bought into the lies that misogyny teaches, and this has led me to make bad decisions or to say or do foolish things. I am pretty annoyed at myself for this, but I cannot change the past. What I can do is learn from it and be glad I figured it out when I am young. I can try to share what I have learned with others who are facing the same thing, which is what I am doing now. And I can also strive to form healthier relationships with women in the future. But how? Unfortunately in my pursuit of understanding misogyny I have had to scuttle much of what I know about building relationships with women because I realized that much of it was based on something that is simply wrong. Which brings up the next question: what is right? This is something I have not finished thinking through, so I will not address that here. What I do know, however, is that by being sincere and thoughtful, and by understanding my own self worth and the value of the people around me, I will build stronger relationships with others and have a more meaningful life. And I have to believe that a relationship with a woman can be built on that much more soundly than one built on misogyny.

Forward this ARTICLE to someone who needs to answer the CLUE PHONE

*

http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/ ... gyny.shtml

*

[vanlose kid]

*

i wonder how much of the anti in this thread stems from recovering nice guys... "feminist reign of terror", seriously.

Jade Exposes the Fallacy of "The Nice Guy's Dilemma"

Written by: Joe

[Riffed by JadeSyren]


Apologies to "Joe" - apparently this was submitted by a Steve Seversen, and erroneously credited to him. Joe pointed out this mistake and we prefer to give appropriate credit to those we riff. The original article (in all its whinging, self-pitying glory) can be found at Joe's own site at: JoeTown

The Nice Guy's Dilemma
Joetown, February 19, 2000

Observation: women hate nice guys. It's absolutely true, and don't deny it. Nice girls don't like nice guys,

[Nice guys don't like themselves. It's like a tired pick-up line these losers use. If you're truly a nice guy, you don't have to advertise it. Being a nice guy is not a synonym for being a co-dependant lump, however, calling yourself a "nice guy" like it is some badge of martyrdom, IS.]

and you know it. Evidence: Remember the incredibly gorgeous girl in high school? Remember the loser guy she was dating?

[Life doesn't always fall into stereotype.]

He was probably some jock, but he definitely wasn't a nice guy. And think to college - think of the girl in your psych

[As a matter of fact, I often wondered what "nice guys" saw in "gorgeous" girls. Judging people on a superficial basis doesn't make you a "nice guy," and ironically, you get what you deserve when you judge people by what's on the outside.]

class who is just amazing. She's smart, funny, outgoing, and is well beyond beautiful. Is she single? Are you kidding? That's her boyfriend sitting next to her, the asshole frat guy with the Amercrombie baseball cap.

[I can hear you eating your heart out from here. Use a napkin.]

Let's face it, guys, women don't like us. Not if we're nice, anyway.

[Well, aren't there any OTHER girls that would draw your interest, NICE GUY? How about the nice girl sitting beside you?]

Now, I understand that this entire rant here is subjective, so I should in all fairness clarify my terms. When I refer to "nice girls," I think my standards are pretty universal. Physical beauty, intelligence, sense of humor, creativity, and style come together to combine a general niceness factor, and that's what I'm talking about.

[Yes, I can see how all that goes into *your* definition of NICE (when it applies to women).]

And when I refer to "nice guys," I'm referring to guys who basically have their shit together. They're smart, they study a lot and work hard, and they try to be generally nice to everybody. They're friendly, polite, and they like their mothers.

[I notice that physical beauty has nothing to do with a NICE GUY, so tell me, if you aren't interested in a less-than-immediately attractive girl, why should any beautiful woman want to be with a troglodyte such as yourself, using your standards?]

Here's your basic test to see whether or not a guy is nice: Tell the subject about this thing you heard that was really rude. If the subject laughs and says, "Dude, that rocks. I wish I could be that mean," you know he's not a nice guy.

[My definition of a genuinely nice guy is one who will treat everyone as an equal, and who DOESN'T EXPECT to get anything because of his nice behavior.]

But women love him. That's the true defining characteristic of an asshole. Great women date losers. They LOVE assholes. But they stay away from nice guys like the plague.

[Nice guys like you are the plague. Who wants to spend time with someone with hypocritical values, a whiny and self-centered outlook, and feels that his "nice" behavior is like a barter system. Nice guys like you are hardly in short supply. You tend to shit on your friends, then cry about being alone. Nice guys don't finish last, whiny, I'm-so-sorry-for-myself-I'd-kill-myself-but-I'd-rather-mope guys finish last, and so they should. Grow a spine, stop expecting something for practically nothing, and get over the envy.]

My friend Phil and I have given this problem a telling name: The Nice Guy's Dilemma. In an effort to discover why the Nice Guy's Dilemma exists in the first place, I decided to go to the source: I found some nice girls and asked them why in the hell they were being so stupid.

[Anything to avoid working on the REAL problem: yourself.]

My expectation was that the girls I talked to would disagree about why the Nice Guy's Dilemma exists. I even expected some to deny that it exists at all. To my surprise, not only did every single girl I talked to agree that women

[And how many WAS that, exactly? I really hate these do-it-yourself surveys.]

are largely attracted to assholes, but with only minor variation did they disagree about why.

[To your face, anyway.]

Without any doubt, nice guys in today's college environment are the victims of a massive conspiracy.

[Yes, we conspire to shut you out of the dating scene. (And guys complain about women with 'victim' mentality!)]

Women are attracted to excitement. They crave drama and suspense in a relationship. The nice guy can't offer these things, because he is inherently unexciting. The nice guy will always be there for you, and will always have a shoulder to lean on.[Is that ever an understatement. The "nice guy" will wrap himself around your leg, vowing never to let you go. He worries when you're out with your friends. He does "nice" things for you only to throw them up in your face later, which tells you that the act of kindness was really a spiderweb of power.

Where the hell is the excitement in that? College women are looking for a relationship that is reckless; they want a boyfriend who will be just a little too daring. They want somebody who will frustrate and challenge them.

[Someone who will be his own person? Of course someone with the personality of a wet dishrag would perceive anyone even slightly more stimulating as "reckless".]

I don't know why, but it's true. My friend Kristen suggested that in a way, all women are looking for a challenge. It's a maternal instinct, she says, to seek out the problems in a guy and try to fix them. Women, she says, are attracted to asshole guys because they think that they can fix them.

[That's a different problem altogether, but one thing about this is not surprising. I am not shocked that one co-dependent person found another to befriend. Healthy people just aren't attracted to that type of behavior.]

Women are inherently social workers.

[Well, the co-dependant kind would be. Anything to avoid fixing their OWN issues. Much like "nice guys." And of course, you don't notice the healthy ones.]

Nice guys don't present a challenge, because they don't have the same readily apparent problems for women to want to fix. The truth, of course, is that even the nicest of guys has personality issues that run extremely deep.

[You have a host of problems to fix, to be honest, but who wants to bother with someone who tends to be a controlling crybaby and thinks of himself as a 'victim'? ]

Nice guys choose to conceal these flaws, of course, because we think that women will find us unattractive if they know that we're not perfect.

[You THINK you are hiding your flaws, but in reality you are so transparent it's a wonder you can see yourself in the mirror when you shave in the morning...]

If we only knew the truth, that women actually like character flaws because they want to fix those problems. My friend Tara agreed with my summary: Women are inherently social workers.

[No, your friends are social workers. I don't waste my time. There are a lot of women like me, too, but we stay away from guys like you.]

So there you have it: A clear explanation of why women choose to date assholes instead of nice guys. Nice guys aren't nearly as exciting or dramatic as assholes, and we don't present any flaws for women to want to fix, either. Basically, we're fucked.

[In the head, yes.]

So how do nice guys get around this dilemma? How do we overcome the problem of not being rude and arrogant? Fortunately, it appears that time is on our side. "They're just getting it out of their system," said Kristen.

[Funny how self-confidence can be misinterpreted as arrogance. Self-confidence is attractive.]

Women apparently go through a phase in their early twenties in which they crave the experience of a reckless dating relationship. My friend Julia explained that women are afraid that they'll suddenly be 40 years old and married without ever having dated some reckless punk like John Travolta in "Grease."

[Oh yeah, that's exactly what every woman fears.]

No girl wants to marry Travolta's character, but they all want to date him for at least a little while. I can testify to this fact from personal experience: An ex-girlfriend once said that the reason she thought we should end our relationship was that it was "too stable." The logic that once seemed flooded with bullshit is now crystal clear.

[What she meant was that you were BORING, overbearing, and whiny and probably wrapped yourself too tightly around her leg. Let's face it. When you become aware that you are dating someone who could be one of those guys that snaps and stalks you later, you'll say ANYTHING to lessen the blow and get your ass outta dodge.

And she's right. You ARE long-winded and boring. You disguise the fact that you're whining about your fate by dressing it up in this article as an insightful look into the Nice Guy dilemma, when in fact you're really wondering why YOU can't get a date...well, from a woman who LOOKS good, anyway. Pathetic.]

So apparently, all we have to do is wait. Sometime in their late twenties or early thirties, women start to think more about permanent relationship status. Sometime in their thirties, women start to think rationally.

[Do tell. As late as that? Tell me, when do men like YOU start to think rationally? When do you get off the self-pity pot?]

They begin thinking about marriage and children, and then it suddenly hits them that they need a stable, nice guy to date, not an asshole. The evidence for this shift is obvious: You don't see many thirty-year old guys running around with Amercrombie sweaters and baseball caps, making plans to get "totally wasted" this weekend.

[No, they just buy tools they don't need, tinker around with cars, have midlife crises that involve dating someone young enough to be their daughter and buying a pussymobile. I don't even want to talk about sporting events with a couple of their friends.

Actually, aside from the midlife crisis stereotype, I'd ENCOURAGE a man to get out of my ass and have his own interests. He SHOULD be doing this. If his every waking moment is devoted to me or the family, he's just hiding from his problems involving himself. In other words, he's in desperate need of therapy, and I'm not the one to give it to him.]

And if you do see those guys, you notice that they're single, unlike in college, where they've got their selection of the best girls on campus. So buckle in, nice guys, and get ready for the ride. Prepare to fly solo for another few years, and just be there when this magical change happens in the gender that makes no sense.

[ From your side of the fence anyway. Sorry to crush the only thing that gives you comfort, but if you're waiting for age to make you suddenly attractive, think again. By the time YOU hit thirty, you'll stop expecting that gorgeous woman to notice you, and you'll start ranking those women you consider to be less attractive UP a notch.]

Or, if you're like me and refuse to wait for some mythical common sense to befall our female counterparts, you can try Plan B: Be an asshole.

[That was what this was about? Your justification as to why you're an ass? You didn't need to write ME for that.]

Just be sure to drop by Abercrombie for your costume.

[Assholes wear clothes from anywhere, but true to form, you judge by the outside appearance.

Sit in your own shit and cry.]

http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/ ... emma.shtml

just a thought.

*

[vanlose kid]

seeing as the scene seems entirely improvised and cut together (looks that way to me) maybe the director chose the quirky off beat takes precisely because the timing was wrong?

*

ahh, you see? I didn't watch, I only listened with the occasional glance at the screen. Watching it back I get your point. Either way the monologue is .. well it almost made me sick. I was fascinated though.. the messages in it, to me, were:
women are objects to be conquered
women should love to be conquered
men hate women who resist being conquered
men love women who accept being conquered - the more they can learn to love their oppressor the better, and
men hate themselves for conquering (but not enough to stop)

re the above, read this: How NOT to Apologize when you have Seriously Fucked Up.

... to a T.

*

[Canadian_watcher]

re the 'nice guy dilemma' - it's been my experience that genuinely nice men never think that they are punished for their attitudes or approach to others. And it's also my experience that assholes and nice guys have an equal chance of dating/getting married - either to nice girls or bitches - there's just no rhyme or reason to love.

[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.

.

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

On whom? That's a convenient doctrine, especially for one determined to force an interpretation the text author may not have intended or the words may not say, in the service of pretending to win an argument.

Apropos:

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.

A minute earlier, you were telling me textual meaning is what the reader decides it is, or the product of a social consensus ("the effect it has"). When it suits you, however, we're back in the land of naive individualism and blindness to culture and social structure. When it suits you the meaning is just the meaning, not "the effect it has." Your rule could equally be applied (and with the same validity: none) to class society and the power elite (i.e., "all bad things come from bad apples, general reflection and debate about the system harms a class who are mostly innocent, catching a few of the corrupt will serve as a deterrent").

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?

Here you show you can make selective use of the on-off button for your sense of irony. You might try the same with the wounded spot that acts up whenever people relate their experience with the societal prevalence and consequences of macho culture and misogyny. It's not always about you.

.

[vanlose kid]

.

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.

On whom? That's a convenient doctrine, especially for one determined to force an interpretation the text author may not have intended or the words may not say, in the service of pretending to win an argument.

Apropos:

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.

A minute earlier, you were telling me textual meaning is what the reader decides it is, or the product of a social consensus ("the effect it has"). When it suits you, however, we're back in the land of naive individualism and blindness to culture and social structure. When it suits you the meaning is just the meaning, not "the effect it has." Your rule could equally be applied (and with the same validity: none) to class society and the power elite (i.e., "all bad things come from bad apples, general reflection and debate about the system harms a class who are mostly innocent, catching a few of the corrupt will serve as a deterrent").

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?

Here you show you can make selective use of the on-off button for your sense of irony. You might try the same with the wounded spot that acts up whenever people relate their experience with the societal prevalence and consequences of macho culture and misogyny. It's not always about you.

.

you've been preempted Jack.

...

stephen morgan, an impression:



*

I'm more the same than ever.

*

[Stephen Morgan]

The Krays were violent and powerful.

They had power tho.

Well, all violent offenders have power while they are being violent, that's why they do it. The Krays were just abused kids, they were just being violent to take the power they didn't feel they had to begin with. They just stretched their violent acting out over a shitload of years, rather than one moment.

Pinochet had power, and used violence against his enemies.

There are some people who are simply deviants, but I don't believe most violent criminals fall into that category, most of those violents at the top of society, perhaps.