What constitutes Misogyny?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby 82_28 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 12:23 am

C2W, sometimes I do get hysterical and for good reason -- ask my lady. Not this time. I came out of the box and lumpheadedly said "misogyny" is "bullshit". For which now becomes, "yeah, but what do you mean by bullshit"? Well, I mean it's bullshit. You'll find me being a man, but you won't find me ever being a misogynist.

I then commented thereafter about someone (I ain't going back through the thread) bringing up the beauty hoops women have to jump through and since there was quarreling, I thought I would assert that sometimes you can have fun with these awkward differences if trust is there. I delineated personal stories about someone in my life with appearance issues and how it can be fun to fuck with the conventional norms when people least expect it and have that help to not only increase the camaraderie but also someone's self-esteem that you care about. Girls can be boys and boys can be girls -- I have always believed this and also lived it. None of you people have any idea what it is that makes my comments tick, unless you allow me to post them.

One of my favorite songs of all time is Sheila Take a Bow by The Smiths, which, mind you, was a band I liked as a kid and got hella shit for it. I still get shit for it here. Jeesh.



Is it wrong to want to live on your own ?
No, it's not wrong - but I must know
How can someone so young
Sing words so sad ?

Sheila take a, Sheila take a bow
Boot the grime of this world in the crotch, dear
And don't go home tonight
Come out and find the one that you love and who loves you
The one that you love and who loves you
Oh ...

Is it wrong not to always be glad ?
No, it's not wrong - but I must add
How can someone so young
Sing words so sad ?

Sheila take a, Sheila take a bow
Boot the grime of this world in the crotch, dear
And don't go home tonight
Come out and find the one that you love and who loves you
The one that you love and who loves you

Take my hand and off we stride
Oh, la ...
You're a girl and I'm a boy
La ...
Take my hand and off we stride
Oh, la ...
I'm a girl and you're a boy
La ...

Sheila take a, Sheila take a bow
La ...
Throw your homework onto the fire
Come out and find the one that you love
Come out and find the one you love


Annie, I think you should take a bow with your skills at condescension. You are impossibly mean.
Last edited by 82_28 on Tue Mar 08, 2011 5:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby norton ash » Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:13 am

"I love PJ Harvey, too, I think her lyrics are brilliant. She’s real tortured and I’m drawn to people who are tortured. I’m a huge fan of hers."
-- Madonna


Bad, dim, shallow Madonna! Like being tortured is the mainspring of PJ Harvey's talent. I guess that's just the role PJ plays in the Madonna worldview movie.

'Real tortured' helps, being able to write and sing and play it (like nobody else ever has) is what matters.

Anyway, back to misogyny. Here are some evil lyrics from 1972.

Baby, I'd love you to want me
The way that I want you
The way that it should be
Baby, you'd love me to want you
The way that I want to
If you'd only let it be


Groovy song that we slow-danced to, but Charles Manson could have written it. (He may have, as Lobo was a Laurel Canyon peripheral. :twisted: )

That 'should be' is chilling.

I think misogynists and reactionaries are people who think there's a 'should be' and get angry when there isn't.
Zen horse
User avatar
norton ash
 
Posts: 4067
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:29 am

JackRiddler wrote:
Joe Hillshoist wrote:Liz Phair and PJ harvey make much better music (imo) than madonna or britney spears.


Do you know I barely know Liz Phair? But I worship PJ Harvey. For the music. And of course what you say is so true that it's almost redundant, like telling us the sky is blue, assuming a sunny day.

Your mistake is to think Madonna or Britney Spears are primarily "about" the music. They are celebrity phenomena, and therefore among the many, many sub-categories of hysteria. The music does need to fit a certain zeitgeist.


I don't think they are about the music, thats why they don't make it that well. Tho sometimes some stuff Madonna has done sounds good. Madonna and Britney are about controlling and directing hysteria I spose, tho Madonna seems to be in charge of the process when she does it. I don't think Britney Spears is.

I agree what I'm saying is so true its redundant, unless you live your life heavily influenced by celebrity culture or just mainstream culture, in which case you'd probably say "who?" about either of them. But really anything a guy says on this thread is probably redundant. (IMO)
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Plutonia » Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:10 am

Madonna's sexual presentation is so mannered it may as well be banana creme pie.

In comparison, with Lucinda Williams, sex seems so proximate that you can practicably smell it.

My opinion of course.

But guys, tell me this isn't just a little bit scary to you?

(BTW, "help me get fucked up" is the censored line.)





She's fuckin great.
Last edited by Plutonia on Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
[the British] government always kept a kind of standing army of news writers who without any regard to truth, or to what should be like truth, invented & put into the papers whatever might serve the minister

T Jefferson,
User avatar
Plutonia
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:07 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re:

Postby Stephen Morgan » Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:37 am

barracuda wrote:A far better measure would be the ratio of women to men in high positions of government.


A convenient way to ignore the disparity between men and women among the homeless, those who die in on-the-job accidents, those who are unemployed, and the other disadvantaged groups who make upa much larger part f the population that those in the 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.


They would probably also consider it unsafe to walk alone at night, but that isn't so either. But, again, it does conveniently rule out any argument if your position is simply "women feel it is so, so it is so".

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.


OR because I present statistics clearly showing women to have many advantages in modern society. I mean, obviously no level of economic or social or legal advantage can make up for the fact that some women on this board think society is guilty of this "misogyny" which only women, in your view, are capable of even defining.
Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible. -- Lawrence of Arabia
User avatar
Stephen Morgan
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:37 am
Location: England
Blog: View Blog (9)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:38 am

compared2what? wrote:Nope. Turns out to be the other way around. Plus, a wonderful opportunity to illustrate a point made earlier. As in:

    "I love PJ Harvey, too, I think her lyrics are brilliant. She’s real tortured and I’m drawn to people who are tortured. I’m a huge fan of hers."
-- Madonna

Because seriously. Is there any conceivable way that Madonna could have said how much she loved PJ Harvey that engendered any less personal sympathy for herself? No. That's just past all imagining. Furthermore, one cringes quite enough already without even having to entertain that thought.

And yet, she didn't really say anything that reflected poorly on her character, taste, discernment or even intelligence. It's a gauche thing to have said, but not really a stupid or "wrong" thing to have said. I mean, it's not like that's no part of what PJ Harvey really does convey. So.

Like I said. She's got a genius for being personally off-putting.


Wow.

Thats quite funny in a sad way. No there is no way I can think of that Madonna could have said anything about anything really that would engender less sympathy for her. Thats amazing.

I kind of get what she means tho, which is the problem. She doesn't seem empathetic enough to be saying that in a self reflective way, its too touristy. Sums her up I spose. So in that sense madonna is a brilliant artist cos she holds a mirror up to society. But arts got a magic quality about it too, it shapes reality as much as reflects it. In that sense lots of her art leaves me cold.

Ultimately theres a feedback loop there thats unhealthy. But that says more about the state of our society than about Madonna. if it wasn't her it'd have been someone else with the smarts and the talent and inherent emptiness to do the same thing. (It wasn't Penny Rimbaud and never would be.) Tho I reckon Liz Phair must have also come across her. I spose the mainstream 80s were pretty repressed and Madonna was pretty upfront about her sexuality and more in control of it. That song "Papa don't preach" was a shit song, but it was a good message to send, really. That was a good thing given the time.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby 23 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:45 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... z1FtLHLhSz
Househusband backlash as high-flying wives ditch men they wanted to stay at home

Image

At the time it seemed like a good idea. After all, Richard Dean told himself, he was earning less than his wife Louise, a high-flying marketing executive. And did it really matter who was at home to look after their children?

With that in mind, it was not such a difficult decision for him to give up his career as a manager in the manufacturing industry to look after their ten-month-old son, Jack.

He hoped it would bring them closer together as a family. In reality, it sounded the death knell for their marriage.

Thousands of men who stay at home to raise the children are being dumped by their high-flying wives

"I sensed that Louise was becoming more detached and less interested in me sexually within a year of becoming a househusband," says Richard, 50. "She was always picking on me for silly little things she said I hadn't done, like the washing up or not tidying away the toys.

"It was as if she was losing all respect for me, just because I was the one at home, doing the domesworktic duties. Then, one day two years ago, she announced she was leaving me - and taking the children with her. She told me she was going to go and live with her mother 20 miles away. To say I was devastated does not do my feelings justice. It was as if the bottom had fallen out of my world."

For five years Richard, from Watford, Herts, had worked hard to become a perfect "mother" to their sons, Jack, who is now nine, and Edward, seven. But from the moment he gave up his job, Richard says Louise, 47, failed to see him as a "man".

The phenomenon of the househusband is an increasingly popular one. The number of men deciding to become househusbands has increased by a staggering 83per cent since 1993. According to recent figures from the Office for National Statistics, there are more than 200,000 fathers in the UK choosing to give up their careers and raise their children at home.

But are the couples who go down this domestic route sowing the seeds of marital disharmony? It seems that in many cases the rise of modern career women has had an unexpected - and disastrous - knock-on effect on many husbands who assume the traditionally 'female' role.

In short, having a man whose primary function is not as alpha male breadwinner, but domestic drudge just ain't sexy.

Divorce lawyer Vanessa Lloyd-Platt says that in her experience, the decision to allow the wife to be the main wage earner will have a detrimental effect on as many as half of these relationships, and that divorce statistics in these cases have risen by at least five per cent in the past two years.

"My warning would be to think long and hard about letting the man stay at home,' she says. 'I know it is very trendy for the wife to be the breadwinner, but in my professional experience this decision will strain the marriage. It may be fun at first to say 'I have a househusband', but the wife will quickly begin to resent the fact the man is not pulling his weight financially.

"She will think: 'You're not supporting me' - within all of us I think there is still a very deep-seated belief that men should be the protectors. A gradual lack of respect begins to eat into the relationship, and it puts men in a very vulnerable position.

"The role these men are performing at home is, of course, very valuable, but women can find it very hard to recognise and respect a man who is doing it."

It's a marital timebomb which exploded under Richard Dean's relationship with little warning, yet he and his wife embarked on their "househusband" experiment with high hopes.

Richard says: "Our elder son was just a baby and I was intrigued by the thought of spending all day, every day, with him. It didn't offend my masculinity at all - we'd also just moved into a bigger house and there was a lot of renovation work to be done, so when the baby was asleep I would don my hard hat and do some building work.

"I know my grandfather and my father could never have been househusbands, but I didn't see why there should be a social stigma in this day and age."

Balance quickly shifted

But Richard says the balance in their relationship quickly shifted.

"I was happy to do all the cooking, cleaning, shopping and washing, but I began to feel that Louise was taking me for granted," he says. "She'd come home exhausted after a ten-hour day, and I'd be desperate to chat, to have some adult conversation, but she'd say she was too tired."

He says he poured his heart and soul into being a good "mother", more so after their second son was born two years later. 'I made sure I structured my days with the children - I took them swimming, we went to the park and I did lots of activities with them, like reading and crafts. I lived and breathed those children, but not once did I regret the decision to put my career on hold.

"Yes, it's hard not making your own money, but I was doing the essential job of bringing up our children."

But then the hammer blow fell, and Louise walked out, taking the boys with her.

"I begged her not to go, but I think she had simply decided she could find someone more dynamic than me," he says sadly. "Suddenly, the children I'd cared for since they were babies were being taken away.

"It's all very well to be a househusband, but she had come to look down on me, to think of me as not very masculine, and not hard-working. It was as if all the things I did around the house didn't count - that was nothing compared to how hard she had to work in her mind, which was so unfair.

"And the great irony was that we'd decided together that I should stay at home with the children."

While the pain of the separation was humiliating enough, worse was to follow when Richard attempted to establish proper contact with his children.

For two years he fought through the family courts, desperately trying to gain full access to Jack and Edward. And at the same time, he was forced to find to meet maintenance payments. Having effectively quit his career five years earlier, he had to start at the bottom all over again.

"I was left out in the cold," he says. "It left me in an impossible situation, because I'd been out of the workplace for five years, caring for my children, and yet now I was expected to get straight back to work and start paying her some maintenance."

The moment Richard's wife said she was leaving him and taking the children, she changed her working hours from full to part-time so she could spend more time with the boys, while her mother helped with the rest of the childcare.

"It was very cleverly done," he says. "I've had to take a series of menial part-time jobs just to keep me going financially, and on top of all that I've had two years of solicitor's bills in taking my wife to court to get better access to the children, which has cost me at least £12,000.

Stress

Richard is still desperately fighting for better access to the two children he did so much to raise, but now sees only every other weekend. 'It's no wonder I am suffering from stress, and have gone from living in the lovely home we owned to a two-bedroom flat in a much rougher area of town.

Vanessa Lloyd-Platt says there is a huge problem built into the legal system at a time when more and more fathers are becoming primary carers for their children.

"There has been a massive turnaround in roles within a marriage, but there is still a very strong belief in the legal system that allowing the father to have residency of the children is somehow against the natural order of things, and many judges still believe the children will be better off with their mother."

It's a conundrum which is all too familiar to 46-year-old James Thomson, who works as a mechanical engineer, but prior to this was a stay-at-home father to his three daughters, Alice, 14, Chloe, 11, and Amy, eight. He lives in Manchester, and like Richard, he found that his marriage to Angela - a 43-year-old who runs her own communications company - began to crumble once he had given up his job.

James says: "We made the decision that I should stay at home when Alice was 18 months old. Angela was earning twice as much as I was. Up to that point we'd had a child-minder, but it felt as if neither of us was spending much time with our child.

"Alice would scream when we dropped her off with the child-minder, so it was obvious that all was not well. We then had a two-week family holiday in Greece and talked about the future. It became obvious that by the time we'd paid a child-minder and both of our petrol costs, there wasn't a lot left from my wage. It actually made financial sense for me to be at home.

"To my surprise, I slipped into the role with real ease. I shopped, cleaned, washed and cared for Alice, and then Chloe and Amy once they came along. Alice was with a childminder for just under a year before I gave up my job, and I was a househusband for about 11 years until we split."

James says that as a househusband 12 years ago he was very much in the minority, and many mothers were very distrustful of him.

"There weren't many couples doing this when we first made the decision, and I think some other mothers thought I was trying to seduce them when I'd chat to them at coffee mornings and play groups,' he says.

"In the park, they'd all be sitting chatting to each other while I rushed around physically playing with my kids and they ignored me.

"Then when my wife came home she'd plonk herself down in a chair and put on the TV or read a magazine and ignore me, too, while I was still running round with the children.

"I suppose I did resent this, but I thought that was the trade-off. The children meant the world to me. But then, in 2005, our relationship broke down completely. We were hardly talking to each other, and she was spending longer and longer out of the house.

"One day she came home suddenly and told me that she didn't love me any more, and she was fed up with being the main breadwinner.

"It came out of the blue to me - we'd jointly agreed that this was the best plan, and it was as if the rug was being pulled from under my feet to be told that she was not happy and deeply resented having to earn all the money.

"Further arguments followed and over the course of several months they got more and more heated until in the end I told her to pack her bags and get out if she was so miserable. At first the children stayed with me and she visited them, but then she took me to court."

As both Richard and James were to discover, the British courts still favour the mother when it comes to deciding where the children should live in divorce cases, even if the father has previously been the primary carer.

James has 50-50 care of his children - he has them for one week, his wife the next.

"I suppose I should be grateful that I have a half-share in my children, but it doesn't feel like that to me at all - I miss them so much," he says.

"I just have to put up with what little time I have with them, and be grateful for that.

James says: "It's madness that in this day and age fathers do not have more rights over their children. I think it's appalling that courts should be able to rule that a father's needs are somehow less than those of a woman. Just because someone gave birth to the children doesn't mean they love them more.

"I cope by working very long shifts when my children aren't here, and my company has been really helpful and understanding in letting me work flexible hours when I need to pick them up from school."

David Williams, 48, from Cardiff, is still fighting his wife Mandy, 39, for custody of their four-year-old daughter, Alexandra, after they split up two years ago.

He used to work in social services, but is now retired through ill health. His wife used to work as an administration officer, but has given up full-time work to care for their daughter.

Like Richard and James, he feels much of his masculinity and power in the relationship was lost when he gave up his job to become a househusband.

"It is ironic, given that for hundreds of years women have been perceived solely as housewives and mothers, and yet their role has been regarded as essential to society and they have been respected and valued for it," he says.

"But once I gave up my career, I lost prestige both in society and in the eyes of my wife. It was as if I had no value.

"There were times in our marriage when I felt as if I was being treated like a subservient Victorian housewife. I'd be criticised if the washing wasn't hung out exactly how my wife wanted it and she used to check to make sure that I had cleaned the house perfectly, checking for dust and badly-washed plates.

"My wife was a real control freak and she wanted everything to be done perfectly. My standards weren't good enough, even though I had run a house perfectly successfully on my own before I met her. I spent my days cooking and cleaning, as well as doing everything for our daughter."

David is still very bitter about the outcome of their divorce.

"Even though I had been looking after my daughter for two years, when it came to our divorce the judge assumed my wife should be the one to have custody of our child - just because she's a mother," he says.

"This was despite the fact she was working full-time, and I had been the primary carer. Now that she has full custody of Alexandra, she works part-time from home. It is a situation that makes me weep - I miss my daughter so much."

He now lives alone, in the little cottage he owned before he married, and sees Alexandra only every other week.

"She lives 110 miles away from me, away from the friends she made when she lived in our village, and my family, in the area that was her home. I'm allowed to see her for two weekends a month. That means a round trip for me of more than 200 miles. It is annihilating me, both emotionally and physically."

If current trends are anything to go by, the number of men deciding to become househusbands is set to rise even more dramatically.

But how many of those men - who no doubt start out by regarding themselves as paragons of sensitive modern manhood - will end up wishing they had never left the office at all?
"Once you label me, you negate me." — Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
23
 
Posts: 1548
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Nordic » Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:06 am

Yikes. Well, that's exactly what I was talking about when I said this earlier:


Men are often convinced by women that if only they would change, then the women would be happy. So men go ahead and change. Then the woman still isn't happy, the men keep changing accordingly, and finally she departs, leaving behind the destroyed remnants of what used to be a guy.

These guys are often the ones who join men's movements.


This guy did what his wife wanted him to do. He changed into the person he thought she wanted him to be. And then he wasn't the guy she fell in love with anymore, so she moved on. WITH THE KIDS, which is just fucking cruel as hell.

Trouble with this approach, you turn into .....

Image

..... and get treated accordingly.

Not that this has anything to do with misogyny in our culture.

But people can really just suck. What did Bill Hicks say about marketing people again?
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:23 am

Since its come to this, Jack mentioned something about the relationship between misogyny and misanthropy and the simple sad consequences.



This achingly beautiful song was written by paul kelly.

Lucinda Wlliams is cool, she goes off.



Deborah Conway is pretty cool too, I was 15 when that was on.

Anyway this one's for all the messed up guys including you Stephen, especially you maybe in light of some of the things you have said on this thread.



(Tho the content of the song is not aimed at you Stevo, but it wasn't written in a vacuum. Every guy should listen to this song, me included.)
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby compared2what? » Tue Mar 08, 2011 4:27 am

norton ash wrote:
"I love PJ Harvey, too, I think her lyrics are brilliant. She’s real tortured and I’m drawn to people who are tortured. I’m a huge fan of hers."
-- Madonna


Bad, dim, shallow Madonna! Like being tortured is the mainspring of PJ Harvey's talent. I guess that's just the role PJ plays in the Madonna worldview movie.

'Real tortured' helps, being able to write and sing and play it (like nobody else ever has) is what matters.

Anyway, back to misogyny. Here are some evil lyrics from 1972.

Baby, I'd love you to want me
The way that I want you
The way that it should be
Baby, you'd love me to want you
The way that I want to
If you'd only let it be


Groovy song that we slow-danced to, but Charles Manson could have written it. (He may have, as Lobo was a Laurel Canyon peripheral. :twisted: )

That 'should be' is chilling.

I think misogynists and reactionaries are people who think there's a 'should be' and get angry when there isn't.


I hate to say it, since I'd very much like to encourage the men on this board who are having trouble locating the stepping stone that leads to thinking about women as existing, empirically, in ways that are entirely independent from the parts of their existences that bear on their relationships with men to get past that obstacle, but:

I think it probably originated with a basic biological imperative and an equally basic biological relative superiority wrt size, weight and strength. Long before there even was a culture. None of us respects (or gives much consideration to) those whose cooperation with our wishes is effectively a non-factor when it comes to ensuring their satisfaction, you know?

Needless to say, that's subsequently been exponentially compounded many times over by, among other things, the accretion of the several millenia's worth of conflicting imperatives and interests that our little present-day acre of imperatives and interests is built on.

But still. When you think about how many of the building-blocks of modern civilization depend (or, not all that long ago, depended) on the ability of its privileged members (or the privileged members of some precursor civilization) to prevent selected women from being raped, you do have to wonder whether there might be something to be said for an anxiety-of-atavism hypothesis.

I mean, even in the present, the imperative of safeguarding women (or as the case may be) oneself from The Threat of Rape in its capacity as, like, an unnamed bogeyman that's looming permanently somewhere out there in the murky outskirts of the cultural psyche is just a hugely pervasive, amorphous part of practically everything. Kind of like an atmosphere unto itself, figuratively speaking. Most obviously and directly as the unadmitted factor around which our rich heritage of rituals and values regarding courtship, marriage and family evolved.

I'm not talking about rape statistics again on an RI thread for any amount of anything, and there is no force on earth strong enough to compel me to do so, btw. I refer anyone who wishes to review a lively debate on that subject to this part of this thread here.

But I don't mean real rape anyway. And there are no stats for unnamed omnipresent environmental fears. Or at least I hope there aren't. Though some unnamed agency might be keeping records right this minute, for all I know. I mean, anything's possible.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby compared2what? » Tue Mar 08, 2011 4:31 am

:roll:

That's all. Just :roll:
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby 82_28 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 4:53 am

Since I am so cool, here's another band who's lyrics came to me tonight as I wandered around wondering what is wrong with people and why they are so hateful, regimented and do not care what your heart says about you. They brush it off as though you are a full time asshole. It's no more fair for a man to be told he is hysterical (C2W no big deal -- your words) than it is a woman.

But some of us men/boys really, really fucking cared about our female friends growing up. We live in the miasma of shit that was always out of control to this day. Personally, it is supremely offensive, as a male, to be told our hearts are not as pure as we can make them, nor were they when we were younger. Feminism, it seems, has no place for well brought up, youthful male idealism -- nor does the world idealistic males wind up entering among other males. This too, is bullshit.

Well, here's a couple songs I was blasting in my walkman in 1989. What a dick I've always been. *faints*.



http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/ ... 1D00298039



When I get the time
I'd like to sit down
and write a little rhyme for you
Just a couple few
I'd tell you
What you mean to me

Yeah!

When I get the time
I'd love to sit down and write a little rhyme for you
Just a couple few
I'd tell you
What you mean to me
When I get the time
I'd
Put it all down and pick you up
I'd say
throw it all away
the world is
me and you tonight

And will there come a day
when nothing is standing in our way?
living that dream
within your arms?
Well, I'll make it happen someday
I'll make it happen someday
I'll make it happen
I'll make it happen someday
When I get the time
I gotta get the time
yeah...........

I'd look in your eyes
for places inside
I've never been
before
I gotta find somemore
and I know you don't owe me
anything
When I get the time
When I get the guts
to live my life
for me
and to do, what I wanna do
I'd be the friend that you said you once knew
or will there come a day
when we give up
and turn away
and I'd have
nothing left
nothing left except
I'd have all the time in the word
all of the time in the word
time to remember
look through the window
time to cry
Time to cry...........
I gotta get the time..............
Where can I find the time?
Where can I find, where can I find the time?
get the time


Sometimes, somewhere, some of us dickhead guys were into making the world a better place with what love we have and had in our hearts -- some of my common friends of this era have committed suicide and have also died of overdoses and murder and such. And frankly, I have yet to meet a woman who gets into the Descendents. I don't know why, but it's true. I don't care if anybody cares or not. It's just the way my urinating joke (circa 2011) life went. I will always reach for the pinnacle of punk female life partner and also always live and let live relationships with all friendships I forge.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Nordic » Tue Mar 08, 2011 5:20 am

Image
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby compared2what? » Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:18 am

Nordic wrote:Image


I was thinking of something a little less airie-fairie-fied and conventionally "romantic" than that, I guess. But yeah, that's more or less what I was talking about.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Cedars of Overburden » Tue Mar 08, 2011 7:55 am

Stray thoughts.

In Tennessee, the damaged goods defense is allowed in civil cases. That is, if you are the clerk who gets held up at gun point, suffer PTSD, and then attempt to have workers comp pay for counselling, the workers comp insurance company will defend that at all costs. State law allows the defense attorneys to review your mental health records. If said records reveal that you were raped (or mugged or assaulted or had any trauma of any kind) in the past, the defense will be that you already had PTSD and that it is therefore unjust to expect workers comp to pay counselling costs. In order to have this paid in Tennessee, it pretty much has to be establsihed that this was your first psychological trauma.

This applies equally to men and women. I wouldn't doubt that, if the clerk revealed that he was a nervous wreck after seeing a fellow construction worker crushed to death on the job and so he quit and started retail work, his claim would be disallowed as well. Therefore, it is not a misognistic law, just a really unreasonable one.

Misogny is the glee and delight I've seen in lawyers eyes when they discover a woman plaintiff told her counsellor she was raped 20 years ago. It's a lot of why I am no longer a paralegal. Having seen that glee and delight on a regular basis is why I'm even less trustful of men in general than I once was. Those lawyers -- if the plaintiff was a man it would be "poor bastard," but if a woman it would be "evil slut." That is misogny.

About men staying home with their kids -- men and women both tend to dispise traditional women's work. It's not only unpaid, which doesn't bother me all that much, it is utterly dispised, maybe especially by people who protest that they are feminists. I associate the label feminism with what I used to call "the lady lawyer type" back in the 80s when I was in my 20s and still routinely called myself a feminist. Women executives, women who are successful by American cultural standards, tend to be even worse than men when it comes to holding traditional women's work in utter contempt. They are often worse than men and the men are pretty damned bad. If you doubt this, try doing childcare or being a waitress or a maid or a secretary -- don't care what gender or lack therof you claim -- just try doing the WORK. Try out telling an organization made up entirely of dedicated feminist activists that it appears from this job description that their office needs a housewife and that being an office manager is often simply a clerical form of housewivery. Then watch as they fall all over themselves assuring you that they meant no offense (which only gives further offense to me at least). Should you be so unfortunate (or stupid) as to then take the job, watch as you then experience, from women, all the body language of contempt -- eye rolling and etc. -- from the dedicated feminists for whom you labor.

Anyone may indulge in power tripping. That's not misogny, it's contempt. The contempt for everything traditionally womanly -- that is misogny and it is often practiced by women on women, although sometimes men fall victim too when they too are so trusting that they dare do women's work.
Cedars of Overburden
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 9:54 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 159 guests