What constitutes Misogyny?

[Stephen Morgan]

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?

Just because women are a privileged class doesn't mean that every individual within that class is, on aggregate, in a strong position. Individuals in any class can come to perceive themselves in a psychologically weak position, particularly women as the violence-against-women industry batter mad ideas into their heads.

[Stephen Morgan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... tch_Hunts/

One part of which contains the story of a woman brainwashed by feminism into seeing men as evil and dangerous, only to eventually recover.

[JackRiddler]

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?

Just because women are a privileged class doesn't mean that every individual within that class is, on aggregate, in a strong position. Individuals in any class can come to perceive themselves in a psychologically weak position, particularly women as the violence-against-women industry batter mad ideas into their heads.

Okay, I think that's enough. Now women are "battered" not by men, but by the "industry" that seeks to end violence against women. The use of the word is as nasty as the thought, and I'm taking it as intentional. Morgan can't allow a comment about real experiences of macho violence to pass without treating it as a defamation of "men" and of himself. Men may be viewed through the naive individualist lens (all are different and individually responsible) but women are a privileged, even master class in a "matriarchy," with an ideology that falsely tells them they are at higher risk of particular forms of violence.

Surely the dozen thread participants have let this discussion revolve around a single person's flat-earth fantasies and cruel 180-degree inversions of reality long enough. I've also engaged him, because he doesn't appear to be a troll. A troll is disingenuous and flexible, a troll makes up positions to anger people; Morgan is consistent and invincibly ignorant. I'm disappearing him from my screen and urge the rest of you to do the same. Especially you, C_w: don't let this blind dickishness drive you mad. I think the Morgan logic of exoneration applies in this case: he's only speaking for his own bizarroland, not for "men," not even for the ideological sexists with whom he shares most views; he's unique and alone in a much bigger world. You don't need to deal with him. None of us do.

.

[barracuda]

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...

Just because women are a privileged class...

I think it's time to foist some barbarous and dictatorial totalitarianism on you, Stephen, by reiterating the posting guideline in juxtaposition with your opinion:

"We correctly assume that women, as a group, have been and continue to be the object of oppression based upon their gender."

I'd ask you to refrain from explicitly standing outside of the inclusiveness of the pronoun which begins that statement. The implication that you do so has become inextricably connected to your username, so I think we can assume it to be understood as the underlying principle attached to your posts. You've successfully branded your username in that respect. Congratulations.

[Stephen Morgan]

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...

Just because women are a privileged class...

I think it's time to foist some barbarous and dictatorial totalitarianism on you, Stephen, by reiterating the posting guideline in juxtaposition with your opinion:

"We correctly assume that women, as a group, have been and continue to be the object of oppression based upon their gender."

I'd ask you to refrain from explicitly standing outside of the inclusiveness of the pronoun which begins that statement. The implication that you do so has become inextricably connected to your username, so I think we can assume it to be understood as the underlying principle attached to your posts. You've successfully branded your username in that respect. Congratulations.

Not quite sure what the first quote there has got to do with that. But I can hardly argue with it, both on the grounds of my well-known positioning and that whole barbarous and dictatorial thing, so for both philosophical and practical reasons.

Obviously the cavalcade of posters eagerly denouncing malekind as evil and monstrous somewhat flout the "anti-sexist board" part of the rule, but that's a relatively orthodox sort of hypocrisy. Like the police enforcing laws against shop-lifters while there are bankers not in prison, good for order if not justice.

Not that I'm buying into any of the conspiracy theories about this board, mind. The bigotry is too pedestrian.

[wallflower]

This is a remarkable thread, I appreciate so much the persistence of everyone sticking with it through difficult issues.

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)

My reaction to the clip is odd. Basically the way I took it was the "anecdote" is what happened, that is, the character relating the anecdote as told to him actually was the psychopath who raped the woman, so that the story of the rape is true, and the story of the woman in his apartment a fabrication. That's a bit far-fetched, except that quite central to the monologue, whether taking the story on its face or not, is the guy saying he's fundamentally not unlike the psychopathic rapist.

vanlose kid really nails the dilemma of an actor portraying the scene. What the character presents as love is far from how I experience love. It's hard for me to imagine the character as sincere, so the task of the actor is to portray insincerity while suggesting an underlying truth.

I might be completely off-base, I haven't read the book or seen the whole film. Reading some of the comments about the film I saw people contend that these "hideous men" weren't really so hideous. John Krasinski's performance made me feel that the character he was portraying really is hideous, so much so that I imagined the character was the rapist in the guy in the car, that he raped the woman and probably murdered her too.

My sense is that John Krasinski provides a very good performance of a very creepy guy.

I'm also glad that van lose kid brought up the nice guys bit that was talked about earlier and especially linking back to those pages.

As a personal disclaimer I'm an insecure person, so at least that much of the "nice guy" stereotype fits me. I hope I don't blame women for my own insecurities, and don't think I do.

Cedars of Overburden brought up the subject of nice guy relating it to her father http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?p=392335#p392335 Here's a classic example she used http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?p=392528#p392528

If a woman tells him something in front of his nose, as in "Daddy, your left front tire is flat," -- well, it's really good that DH is around now to translate that for him. Sometimes, if it is right in front of him, he can process plain information coming from a woman, but damn it, sometimes he just can't or won't or whatever the hell it is, and then he proceeds to do something blindingly just plain flat stupid -- like drive away with one flat tire because he can't be bothered to verify that, no Dad, the woman did not lie to you, it really is flat!

I saw a really good answer to the question: "Does consent always mean saying ‘yes’ before sex?" It's from herehttp://consensual.tumblr.com/post/4160986590/does-consent-always-mean-saying-yes-before-sex

consent lives beyond the “before.” consent means being able to say “i’m sorry, no, i actually don’t like this,” and it also means being able to say “hello i like this can we do it?” consent isn’t always about anything - except respect and communication.

Respect and communication, Yes! What's so creepy about the character in David Foster Wallace's piece is how he imagines he can read what women think without having to communicate. That presumption is wrong enough but it's preceded by a general lack of respect for women. His ideal of love is some grand unity rather than mutuality.

I didn't listen to the whole program that Stephen pointed to, but I did listen to the interview with Meridith Maran. I can see how Stephan Morgan would describe the situation as being brainwashed by feminists, but I don't really hear a general critique about feminism on Maran's part. Even though I didn't listen to all the show the interview with Maran came after a couple of other stories both related by men. The issue is how people can get caught up in following the herd and Maran's story was a part of that theme not a knock against feminism which after all is large and diverse body of thought and practice.

There was a good essay about David Foster Wallace and self-help books at The Awl last month http://www.theawl.com/2011/04/inside-david-foster-wallaces-private-self-help-library It's a long piece and probably would be of interest to fan's of DFW. Here's a snippet:

That's just the thing about recognizing our common humanity, our common burden. We're suspended for a moment on this spinning blue pearl, here together and alive right now, conscious, though no one knows why. It is a question of caring. When one of us considers the experiences of another, all the failings and the achievements in someone else's life, we are seeing from this common place, knowing that it's all taking place in doubt and the absolute solitude and terror of being human, and knowing that it's all temporary. All those who are unsure of themselves and suspect themselves of the worst falseness and wrong, bad things are to be not only pitied but loved, identified with and known. Wallace taught that, and suffered for it, and in a way he died of it, too.

I'm not aware enough of DFW's work to be sure Maria Bustillos, the author of the Awl article, is right that DFW taught that "bad things are to be not only pitied but loved" but she seems convincing. Going along with that put into question my reaction based on a single clip from the film that the men portrayed really are hideous; okay they are, but they also are to be loved and that's the part I'm finding very hard, but a point DFW probably was making.

Going back in this thread I can see how bad I am at getting my ideas into writing. Something I didn't do when nice guys came up before is to provide a link to Amanda Marcotte's post about nice guys http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/seriously_theres_nothing_nice_about_nice_guysreg/ Something about popular blogs is they create all sorts of responses at other blogs. Taken all together this seems like a conversation, and popular blogs mean lots of people read them. So it's easy just because one reads some part of the broader discussion spurred by a blog post to think that everyone is talking about it. When in actuality not all that many people read blogs at all. Anyhow I didn't actually link to Marcotte's piece when I mentioned it before. The hullabaloo around the article was right about the same time that Cedars of Overburden wrote about nice guys and it's probably seems like water under the bridge now. Still here are a couple of links to responses to Marcotte's piece. http://emporiasexus.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/nice-guys/ and http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2011/03/05/amanda-marcotte%E2%80%99s-latest-%E2%80%9Cnice-guy%E2%80%9D-rant-noh/

vanlose kid's posting the pieces from Heartless Bitches on nice guys are more to the point.

edit: man this post is screwy. We're having really wet weather where I am and I hastily posted because of lightening. Anyhow the edit was simply to provide the quote that I hadn't copied before.

[brekin]

barracuda wrote:

I think it's time to foist some barbarous and dictatorial totalitarianism on you, Stephen, by reiterating the posting guideline in juxtaposition with your opinion:

"We correctly assume that women, as a group, have been and continue to be the object of oppression based upon their gender."

I'd ask you to refrain from explicitly standing outside of the inclusiveness of the pronoun which begins that statement. The implication that you do so has become inextricably connected to your username, so I think we can assume it to be understood as the underlying principle attached to your posts. You've successfully branded your username in that respect. Congratulations.

I finally get it. This thread just needs a steady stream of sacrifices to perpetuate itself.

[Canadian_watcher]

My reaction to the clip is odd. Basically the way I took it was the "anecdote" is what happened, that is, the character relating the anecdote as told to him actually was the psychopath who raped the woman, ...I might be completely off-base, I haven't read the book or seen the whole film. Reading some of the comments about the film I saw people contend that these "hideous men" weren't really so hideous. John Krasinski's performance made me feel that the character he was portraying really is hideous, so much so that I imagined the character was the rapist in the guy in the car, that he raped the woman and probably murdered her too.

interesting take on it! .. hadn't thought of that...! Any way you take it its like he's saying to her: "See? *Real* earthy, wholesome women know how to submit and give comfort even when they are despairing and in danger. And he's directly comparing this fantasy woman to his 'cold' girlfriend and wanting to be judged for it. (perhaps the character believes that he has just relayed a story that puts him beyond reproach so it is a challenge to her to test how cold she is or something...or perhaps he really is waiting for judgment.)

I'm also glad that van lose kid brought up the nice guys bit that was talked about earlier and especially linking back to those pages.

As a personal disclaimer I'm an insecure person, so at least that much of the "nice guy" stereotype fits me. I hope I don't blame women for my own insecurities, and don't think I do.

I think that as we mature we go through phases of blaming.. all of us, I'm sure, have done that throughout our learning processes. There are, of course, real nice guys and then there are guys who have taken on the role of 'nice guy.' As long as you're the former then there's no need to worry about whether or not your niceness is stereotypical, right?

I didn't see that post by Cedars.. interesting. My Dad was a 'nice guy' in that way, too. I remember telling him of my attack at university and he barely responded, although ten minutes later I do remember him expressing his belief that there comes a certain point when a man and a woman are "fooling around" that the woman really can't say no anymore. I was 19 - I had no idea what to say to that. It was so... ignorant.

Going along with that put into question my reaction based on a single clip from the film that the men portrayed really are hideous; okay they are, but they also are to be loved and that's the part I'm finding very hard, but a point DFW probably was making.

well... to a point, maybe. But isn't that the kind of notion that gets plenty of people stuck in absolute no-win situations with abusive, addicted spouses, etc? Loved but from afar, I guess - it's safer for ones personal integrity to separate or allow yourself not to love something that is destroying itself and others.

[wallflower]

Interjecting current events now is probably not such a good idea, but doing it anyway because Maureen Tkacik's take on Dominique Strauss Kahn being charged with assault and rape is good http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/05/18/dsk-saga-is-not-just-a-french-thing/

In truth the DSK alleged-rape saga is as international as the bastion of the ”New Global Elite” he helmed for so long, another powerful testament to the alarming growth in the impunity accorded the typical “Davos Man” with membership in the reigning Plutocracy Without Borders. That media on both sides of the Atlantic persist in covering DSK as a uniquely “French” phenomenon — even as it competes for page views with the “shocking” new revelations of a Mitterand-esque 10-year-old love a certain serial groper managed to conceal from the press for two straight terms as California governator — simply betrays a multilateral cognitive dissonance that underscores this depressing truth.

In talking with my 89 year old father about this saga, we both took the point of view of being workers and siding with a fellow worker abused. It's probably not surprising that two guys talking about this would side step the sexual part of the crime, still it seemed interesting that we would be so sensitive to the class issues part of the story.

[wallflower]

I'm not sure I really understand the premise of the movie. The way I understood it was the woman in the clip wasn't his girlfriend but an interviewer doing a kind of sociological study of fu*#ed up men. So I rather presumed that she was listening with a sort of detached view, hence her quiet at the beginning. But as the guy's story gets more and more out there her silence becomes one of astonishment and fear--Oh my God this guy is truly insane! I was trying to imagine myself in her position and how to extricate myself as quickly and permanently from his presence. So the scene where they flash to a meeting before where they'd smiled at each other, I took that as a signal that was the point where she could no longer imagine this guy as bad but basically normal, and the moment she was sure he was truly hideous.

[JackRiddler]

.

"Hideous" would be mildly ironic. They all have varying degrees of hideous in them, and some of the hideous is more seen than inherent. I'm still embarrassed not to have recommended the book first. The book consists of the numbered interviews, mostly monologues, with the subject of the study only implied, and no narrative to explain what's going on. It's great. The movie adds the woman as researcher and protagonist, fills in what the study might have been about, gives some of the monologues to other characters in her life such as Krasinski (her boyfriend), etc. It's also an actor's shop, some great performances. Krasinski's flatness may be due to director's privilege. Or damage from having spent his entire career on "The Office?" Anyway, maybe his character's story is made up as a means to break up with her in an irreversible way.

VICTORY FOR THE FORCES OF DEMOCRATIC JUSTICE!

.

[Canadian_watcher]

@wallflower - that article is so right on ... making it all out to be anomalous to the rest of the world & specific to French culture is madness when you get right down to it.

As to your other point regarding identifying with a worker being abused - I see that, too. I identify with both - woman and worker - and I'm really not sure which I identify with more strongly since both are pretty fundamental aspects of who I am and where I come from.

[Canadian_watcher]

Yes, the 'hideousness' as portrayed seemed to me to be more about the way men are crafted into the phony masculine ideals, and what that does to a person's sense of self-worth in relation to others. I didn't see it as exposing the 'truth' of the way men naturally are - just a look at the ways in which different men have learned to cope with and exist in the toxic stew of expectations on both sexes.

[compared2what?]

Surely the dozen thread participants have let this discussion revolve around a single person's flat-earth fantasies and cruel 180-degree inversions of reality long enough.

I don't think it's really fair to Stephen or the other thread participants to say that the discussion as a whole has revolved disproportionately around his or any other single poster's views. And I definitely don't think it's fair to single out Stephen as the thread's lone (or even primary) proponent of hatred and anger towards women, female posters, or other individuals generally.

On points of substance, I find his positions to be hateful. I regard it as a categorical imperative to say as much and also to give my reasons for so doing. I think that's both fair in itself and compatible with fair standards for discourse generally.

Beyond that....I don't know. In my experience, it's so much commoner to find lots of conspicuous and continual references to the virtue of empathy occurring in conjunction with an equally conspicuous lack of it in action than otherwise that it's almost like a variation on that apocryphal Mark Twain aphorism about how everybody likes to talk about the weather but nobody ever does anything about it.

In short, that's not all there is to empathy, at least as I understand it. I mean, it's a very pretty concept with virtually infinitely capacious rhetorical value, no doubt. But it doesn't necessarily have to be either of those things. It can even be used as a constructive exercise in human understanding for its own sake at one's individual discretion in a way that's, you know, judicious and in accordance with fair standards and all that other rhetorical clap-trap.

Here's a hypothetical example:

I don't think it's really fair to c2w? or the other thread participants to say that the discussion as a whole has revolved disproportionately around her or any other single poster's views. And I definitely don't think it's fair to single out c2w? as the thread's lone (or even primary) proponent of hatred and anger towards men, male posters, or other individuals generally.

On points of substance, I find her positions to be hateful. I regard it as a categorical imperative to say as much and also to give my reasons for so doing. I think that's both fair in itself and compatible with fair standards for discourse generally.

Obviously, he didn't really write that. But the second paragraph is 100 percent legitimately representative of his attitude and approach. And the first is only inaccurate in stylistic terms. By which I mean: He definitely does pursue a principled and consistent mode of social conduct in relation to posters he perceives to be in need of some degree of appropriate personal support. He just observes more of a show-it-don't-say-it approach to its application than most people do.

I therefore have to say on principle that if it's fair for me, it's fair for him, basically. His views are still hateful, but that's a separate issue and should be addressed as such. Condemn the sin, not the sinner, is I guess what I'm saying. I advocate for that, generally. And I try to practice it, too, although I'm not going to pretend that I don't probably cross the line by about seventy times as great a distance as you (JackR) just did above or ever do, for that matter. I'm sure I do it all the goddamn time, regrettably. Regulatory lapses, we all got a few.

[vanlose kid]

Interjecting current events now is probably not such a good idea, but doing it anyway because Maureen Tkacik's take on Dominique Strauss Kahn being charged with assault and rape is good http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/05/18/dsk-saga-is-not-just-a-french-thing/

In truth the DSK alleged-rape saga is as international as the bastion of the ”New Global Elite” he helmed for so long, another powerful testament to the alarming growth in the impunity accorded the typical “Davos Man” with membership in the reigning Plutocracy Without Borders. That media on both sides of the Atlantic persist in covering DSK as a uniquely “French” phenomenon — even as it competes for page views with the “shocking” new revelations of a Mitterand-esque 10-year-old love a certain serial groper managed to conceal from the press for two straight terms as California governator — simply betrays a multilateral cognitive dissonance that underscores this depressing truth.

In talking with my 89 year old father about this saga, we both took the point of view of being workers and siding with a fellow worker abused. It's probably not surprising that two guys talking about this would side step the sexual part of the crime, still it seemed interesting that we would be so sensitive to the class issues part of the story.

i felt the same.

since you bring it up i'll take it on here, as i was thinking about responding to all the parsing of the height, weight and reach of DSK's victim and how "impossible" the entire scenario seems to some in that thread.

what i wanted to mention there re the victim was

1) she's a woman, a single mother
2) she's an immigrant
3) she's practically on the lowest rung of the social ladder
4) she was working at Sofitel and on the super elite 28th floor
5) she's muslim
[oh, yeah and 6) she's black]

she'd probably kept her head low and done all she could to ensure that she could keep the job, and the last thing she expected (if she ever expected anything like it) to happen to her was DSK. the fact that she got away to me, if not others, actually shows up her strength, and not her weakness.

the fact that she did not heroically fight her way out using the tightest kung-fu in Tarantino style just says this is real, not Hollywood.

all of these things, and there's probably more related to her as a person, manner, demanour etc., are factors that aren't being taken into consideration when parsing here "impossible" reaction, as in how could wimpy DSK have possibly been able to ...?

in an earlier post on that thread i highlighted something that also jives with Tcakick's article:

France questions itself over Dominique Strauss-Kahn's 'open secret'

...

Consensual extramarital sex is a non-story in France, part of the right to a private life protected by fearsome libel and privacy laws. Having a mistress, philandering, even routinely propositioning journalists have been brushed aside for countless political figures. "How many senior male French politicians aren't either a groper, a cheater, a charmer or a serial seducer? And it goes right to the top of the political class," sighed one news editor. "France is still a kind of monarchy that kept the aristocratic morals of the 18th century. The lord of the manor has a right to the women; the king has his mistresses." If more allegations against Strauss-Kahn come to light and lead to criminal charges, it will call into question a taboo in France about speaking out.

...

*

it's not a secret that the ruling class in France have "priviledges and entitlements" over and above what the commoners have. socialist or whatever. not even to the French. maybe that's what they find embarassing? as a class they all grew up in the same ghettos, went to the same schools, came through the same universities, government departments etc. whatever their professed political ideals. Cf., Tristane Banone's mother. which is not to say that it's exclusively French, but only that this perp happens to be French. the ruling class(es), "New Global Elite", "Davos Man", know no nations nor laws. they make them.

*

@ C_w: re "the nice guy's dilemma", in the link wallflower posted to the pandragon piece they make the distinction between genuine nice guys and "Nice Guys®". (the Heartless Bitches make the same distinction.) they're two different species. as far as the latter are concerned there is a "feminist (or at least feminine) reign of terror". this is a synthetic a priori proposition or some such thing.

*