What constitutes Misogyny?

[compared2what?]

If you people want me to leave here, then I will. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with me and I am not making it so. However, most everything I've done in this thread is try and keep things "punchy". I have failed. I guess somebody around here has to.

I am sadly beginning to feel less and less welcome here, like so many before me. Ah well. We shall see, eh?

Please calm down and quit personalizing everything so much. You're getting hysterical.

[beeline]

he he.. well okay i must have seen that, but that's not the message I got from it. But there I go again, reading between lines, putting words in other people's mouths, etc etc.

I actually agree with you re: Madonna being more of a feminist than not, I think the belt buckle was always a little bit of a joke; more like, boys were Madonna's toys.

Anyway, I've got seven (7) older sisters, so I've pretty much paid my dues to any feminist movement/ideology, what with the four used tampons in the toilet when I was four years old (I thought someone had lost their fingers) and the overall bossiness/shrill shrieking/PMS I experienced from age 0 thru 16. Ever spill a glass of milk at dinner and have your mom yell at you? Yeah, now multiply that exponentially by 7.

Last weekend, we moved my parents into a retirement community, five of my sisters were there. They treated my girlfriend much like the wicked stepsisters treated Cinderella. I mean, god damn they're a bossy bunch of bitches.

[compared2what?]

However, most everything I've done in this thread is try and keep things "punchy". I have failed. I guess somebody around here has to.

Hey, I've got an idea to liven up this thread.

On a more serious note: I also have an idea. If you find the thread boring, don't post to it! And especially don't post to it telling the people who don't find it boring how boring you think they're being!

Why? Because it's rude, hostile, unnecessary, distracting and selfish. "Trolling," I believe some call it.

[Canadian_watcher]

I actually agree with you re: Madonna being more of a feminist than not, I think the belt buckle was always a little bit of a joke; more like, boys were Madonna's toys.

Anyway, I've got seven (7) older sisters, so I've pretty much paid my dues to any feminist movement/ideology, what with the four used tampons in the toilet when I was four years old (I thought someone had lost their fingers) and the overall bossiness/shrill shrieking/PMS I experienced from age 0 thru 16. Ever spill a glass of milk at dinner and have your mom yell at you? Yeah, now multiply that exponentially by 7.

Last weekend, we moved my parents into a retirement community, five of my sisters were there. They treated my girlfriend much like the wicked stepsisters treated Cinderella. I mean, god damn they're a bossy bunch of bitches.

you were raised by wolves! ... gives you a good perspective into women, for sure.
Regarding Cinderella - I've noticed that the sister-in-law relationship is one of the most reliably hostile relationships the families of almost everyone I know. It's odd.

[beeline]

you were raised by wolves! ... gives you a good perspective into women, for sure.
Regarding Cinderella - I've noticed that the sister-in-law relationship is one of the most reliably hostile relationships the families of almost everyone I know. It's odd.

You have no idea. Once, in third grade, when Mom, an ardent anti-nuclear protestor, was in jail, my brother made me a cat-food sandwich for lunch. Sure, it said TUNA on the can, but he neglected to read the other side of the can, which read PURR.

It's funny, they all said how much they liked my girlfriend (whom I'm planning to marry ) but had no problem whatsoever ordering her around like a chambermaid.

Might also explain why only one brother (the oldest) has ever been married (twice, and twice divorced). Go figure.

Anyway, my girlfriend tells me I'm special, and I know how to treat a lady, which I think is true, and about 99% of that is just listening--really listening, not just to what she says, but the also underlying meaning. The other 1% is divided up into: doing some of the cooking and cleaning, and not freaking out when she yells at me (like when I caught some of her skin in the dress she was trying on at Macy's yesterday, "You fucking bastard!" That one actually cracked both myself and some dude waiting on his girl both up).

[norton ash]

Also, we need a term analogous to Godwined to use when people bring Madonna into a discussion.

But, but... it's not like you're calling an opponent an evil fascist. When Madonna appears she announces that gender politics, sexuality, adolescence and feminism are complicated. And people may then argue about whether Madonna is good/bad/indifferent/complicated for boys and girls.

It was C-Watcher, after all, who opened this tin by saying mascara ads were a symptom of misogyny.

[wallflower]

you were raised by wolves! ... gives you a good perspective into women, for sure.

Alright, not sure how on topic this story by Allie Brosh at her blog "Hyperbole and a Half" is, but the quip about wolves made me think of it. http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2011/01/wolves.html

The gist of it is a young adolescent boy learns something he didn't know and never suspected about little girls. I think I always got that it is important to the story that the boy Benny is swarmed by girls, but my initial reading of the story didn't seem so specific to girls. Rather I took the story as an example about how important play is to kids, that is how seriously they take it. I think that meaning is true for both girls and boys. But in light of this thread, I see that gender stereotypes play a bigger part in the story than I first thought. Anyhow it's a charming, funny, short read.

[barracuda]

[compared2what?]

he he.. well okay i must have seen that, but that's not the message I got from it. But there I go again, reading between lines, putting words in other people's mouths, etc etc.

I actually agree with you re: Madonna being more of a feminist than not, I think the belt buckle was always a little bit of a joke; more like, boys were Madonna's toys.

IIRC, Madonna invariably made it clear that she did not self-identify as a feminist, when the subject came up. And she also made invariably made it clear that she was making a statement about personal emancipation and empowerment from a female perspective -- ie, hers.

Both parts of that always struck me as fully borne out by her work, personally. She presented sexual emancipation and empowerment as both crucial and central to personal emancipation and empowerment, no doubt. But that's not necessarily feminist, per se. It's more like neo-Reichian.

In visual terms (lingerie, nudity, "BOY TOY" belt buckle, repurposing of Catholic iconography, the popular iconography of "mysterious" female sexual allure from decades past, etcetera) she was always -- and to me, obviously -- working the same straight-up subversion-via-repossession-and-repositioning maneuver as about one-million-and-one fine artists and popular artists did before and after her. From Dada to riot grrrls.

So the "BOY-TOY" thing is basically a two-word way of saying:

"Hello. I own my sexuality. And there's nothing at all you can do to change that, because at the end of the day -- as well as the start and the middle -- guess what? It's mine! Seriously. There's no getting around it. You could even put me in a culture that defined me as nothing more than a disposable object employed by men for the purposes of sexual recreation. Wouldn't change a thing. Here. Let me show you. I'm a boy toy. Do you now own me? Okay. How about my sexuality, to whom does that now belong? Excellent. Case closed."

There's not really anything all that controversial (or even debatable) in there. People just like having conniption fits about displays of female sexuality.

As far as her legacy goes, I'd say: Results mixed to poor. Because, you know. Madonna dances around like a whore on TV and it's subversive. Meanwhile, somewhere in the Bible Belt, a little girl named Britney Spears who wants to be a star grasps the form (which you can't miss) but not the subtext (which you can). So when she grows up, she dances around like a whore on TV and it's not subversive at all.

That's show business. Also, Britney (first three records) actually did represent a construct through which very little girls (in the six- to nine-year-old demo) could reconcile a pretty standard threat-safety conflict about sex and gender roles that both boys and girls confront to some extent in a Puritan culture, albeit in different forms.

So I'm not knocking Britney, by any means. She was just a much more conventional kiddie and teen pop idol than Madonna was. Inflation-adjusted for the change in social mores, she was basically Susan Dey for the year 2000. Which has its uses. Its necessities, even.
___________________

Except for stuff like the not infrequently violent hostility and scorn with which most of the media responded to Madonna, (which was not hers but theirs), I don't really see where any of that gets you to misogny, though. It's kind of a scenic detour, but it's not a route.

[JackRiddler]

Except for stuff like the not infrequently violent hostility and scorn with which most of the media responded to Madonna, (which was not hers but theirs), I don't really see where any of that gets you to misogny, though. It's kind of a scenic detour, but it's not a route.

Your analysis preceding this, which places Madonna into her proper world-historical context and significance, gets only nods of agreement from me. Yet another thing on which I'm happy to give you the last word. But since you really do know (and obviously remember) all that stuff well, you probably also do see where she that gets you to misogyny. Which is that she became such a big and contentious issue in the feminist discussion (was she the new cutting edge of empowerment or a sign of the rollback into objecthood?!) and thus others assigned to her greater significance and put her in a different context than you do, which included issues of misogyny. Perhaps you'd argue a lot of projection was going on, or that she served as pretext for debates that were unrelated to her, but that would be you being right (for a change, ha ha) but others still thinking as they did/do.

.

[Stephen Morgan]

Please calm down and quit personalizing everything so much. You're getting hysterical.

The personal is political, dear girl.

I feel sorry for you, Stephen.

That's just poor form.

I don't mind. I don't feel sorry for her, mind, just rather confused. You all seem to think very differently to me. Not different things, different ways.

Aldebaran has some good things to say, too.

Don't you think it's ironic that the video "Equal" posted by "WeAreEqual" is all about how we supposedly aren't equal? Anyway, I'd just like the nitpick a bit at the content of the video, if no-one minds.

Firstly, the first claim, a man is not likely to earn more than a woman for doing the same job, the basis of the income disparity (which is not a wealth disparity) is in the very fact that the sexes tend to do different jobs.

Secondly, it's pointed out that men have a better chance of entering political office or becoming company director, but not that men have a higher rate of unemployment, are the majority in the dangerous jobs, are less likely to have university education and so on.

Thirdly, it claims men are less likely to be judged for promiscuous behaviour, adding "which is just as well", ably demonstrating that men can be derided for promiscuous behaviour and are also more likely to be assumed to be guilty of it.

Fourthly. They claim is made that men have hardly any chance of being a victim of sexual assault, ignoring the prevalence of sexual assault in prison, not so relevant in this country thankfully and that men are several times as likely to be the victim of EVERY other type of violence crime.

Fifthly, the supposed risk to career from pregnancy, obviously doesn't mention the laws against sacking women for pregnancy or the fact that women are guaranteed by statute six months of maternity leave, while men get two weeks. Also claims women can give birth accidentally, and that fathers can father accidentally. Bit of an odd claim that, mainly but not entirely because women can have legal abortions which pretty much ensures they have chosen to give birth if they do so, although no such choice exists for men.

Makes some bizarre third world claims based on assuming all collective or family property is owned by men and that women will happily work for a twentieth of a male wage, which would certainly explain the higher rate of male unemployment, if it was true. That's one of my problems with this sort of thing, it assumes that every women and every viewer is a total idiot.

Then it points out that women are victims of fear, can't walk the streets at night, all that jazz, points out that two women a week are killed by a current or former partner, ignores that for every 3 women killed by a current or former partner two men are, and that the fear is entirely generate by idiotic bullshit like this, not by the facts which clearly show men as being far more likely to be the victim of a violent crime. It is, in fact, very irresponsible of barracuda to post something which may inculcate in female viewers exactly that fearful reaction which it allegedly wishes to remedy. Perhaps he would like to show his repentance by posting something showing how rare violent crime is, especially against women.

So, in other words, as an objective assessment of the state of sexual equality in modern Britain it does a good job of being a skewed piece of propaganda designed to put the fear of god up women and give them the idea that they are life's eternal powerless victims.

Also, barracuda, weren't you just posting how all this stuff about the governance of wife-beating and so forth isn't what misogyny is really about? I'd be interested in knowing what misogyny is all about, in your view.

[Nordic]

Funny stuff, Beeline! Yeah, growing up with at least one older sister is a highly recommended experience. I can usually tell, among my circle of male friends and acquaintances, which ones grew up with sisters and which one didn't, just based on their feelings and attitudes towards women. Thinking someone had lost fingers, that's just hilarious!

Sisters help demystify the female. Which is a good thing.

C2W, that was an excellent take on Madonna. I never really thought of it that way. I think I probably agree with you there, the Lolita-nymphet Britney Spears probably never would have come on the scene without Madonna paving the way. I think Madonna started it, then Britney finished the job. Of pretty much destroying feminism, that is, for an entire generation of young women/girls. I don't hold it against Britney either, in fact, I hear she's a real sweetheart. And bipolar, which is something I wouldn't wish on anybody.

Madonna is an amazing businesswoman, and I think she shrewdly managed to find her niche within the Zeitgeist of her time, and she was rewarded lavishly for it. I understand she's really tough, but you always know what she wants, and that you always know where you stand with her. FWIW. I don't know if she really gives a damn about how she's perceived, though, and what her role in our culture is, as long as it keeps her in the center of attention and making lots of money. Just my opinion.

[wintler2]

THE Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, has advocated the introduction of quotas to ensure more women are appointed as directors on company boards.

In comments that could reignite claims she has crossed the line between her vice-regal role and politics, Ms Bryce said she believed affirmative action might be the only way to break the stranglehold of the ''old boys' network'' on Australian business.

''I believe the old boys' network is a powerful one,'' she said. ''No one gives up power and privilege willingly, do they?''..

Last year women made up just 3 per cent of chief executives of the top 200 companies on the Australian Stock Exchange, and 8.4 per cent of board members. ..

Happy International Womens Day, everybody!

[JackRiddler]

.

It's hard to say what would have happened without Madonna because she was the first of her kind, the first to occupy the market/media/mentality niche of world's top female pop star on the attention-grabbing level of an Elvis, which did not exist before her, but probably would have come into existence at some point in the last 30 years without her. So to what extent did she invent and shape this niche? Who knows? From observation, certain rules seem to apply: There is almost always only one at a time that is the top-most and grabs the media attention accorded to the "Queen of Pop." Currently this is still Stephanie Germanotta. In the past, it has been Beyonce, Shakira, Britney Spears, Janet Jackson, and who am I missing? The occupant is going to be sexy in a conventional way and sex will always be a big part of the sell. Their coverage tends to be wrapped in a mantle of great controversy, even if not much real controversy is there. Most of them have also generated a surprising amount of academic print.

.

[barracuda]

Perhaps he would like to show his repentance by posting something showing how rare violent crime is, especially against women.

No, but I would like to point out to you that female victims of sexual crime in my country exist in at least a ten to one ratio versus male victims.

Also, barracuda, weren't you just posting how all this stuff about the governance of wife-beating and so forth isn't what misogyny is really about?

"All this stuff"? Did you read what I wrote? "There's no coorespondance between the prevalence of laws governing the beating of wives and the lack of misogyny in society. To discuss the issue in these terms is a trap." That is, unless you wish to demonstrate that women are beaten enough by their husbands that the practice has required statutory regulations for centuries. The existence of legal recourse for beaten women is a poor example of the limitations of misogyny within a culture. The topic in this context is, however, a valuable ploy for the sidelining of legitimate discussion.

A far better measure would be the ratio of women to men in high positions of government. But even that would not negate the anecdotal evidence we have seen in this thread, in which the overwhelming consensus among the female posters seems to be that we live in a misogynist culture, and that they recognise this as a fundamental fact of their existence virtually from birth. I am reticent to simply assume they are either lying or are fools because you insist otherwise, or because of your perfect competence in regurgitating the standard foils for their perspectives which you have cribbed from dozens of anti-feminist books and websites.

I'd be interested in knowing what misogyny is all about, in your view.

Gee willikers, just review the thread. As I tried to make clear on page one, I think only a woman can authoritatively answer that. But to churn forth pages and pages of rhetoric in the assertion that somehow the efforts of women to raise their status in the world as they see it is somehow detrimental to your own status, or to the status of others of your sex, or in some fashion unfair or misguided, strikes me as lacking in the characteristic of justice which you never fail to put forth as your sole motivator in these discussions. Justice is not a zero-sum game.