What constitutes Misogyny?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Re:

Postby Canadian_watcher » Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:16 pm

82_28 wrote:Nope. If I have warm-heartedly personalized things here and have been called out for it for offending some, then so can I call you out.


I haven't seen you do what annie and I are talking about. not on this thread and not elsewhere.

You got into it heatedly in this thread and you do that elsewhere too, and maybe some of what you said was sexist in a way that is difficult to describe and I believe mostly unintentional, but I haven't felt that you react differently when men call you on something than when women do.

But there are glaring examples of this (not done by you) which you can find easily if you look.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Searcher08 » Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:57 pm

Canadian_watcher wrote:
Nordic wrote:I'm not sure what you're talking about. Men can be pretty damn rough when faced with a challenge from another man! I'm not rejecting what you say, I'm just looking for more specific examples because I don't follow you.


I'm just raising it as something I've noticed. edit: and it's certainly not true in every case. Also, do not take this to mean that I'm using you as an example.. I most emphatically am not saying that.

BTW 82 - i really enjoyed being introduced to the material you just posted, thanks!



Im curious about this as well and interested in specific examples - (see reply to Annie )
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Canadian_watcher » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:07 pm

Searcher08 wrote:
Canadian_watcher wrote:
Nordic wrote:I'm not sure what you're talking about. Men can be pretty damn rough when faced with a challenge from another man! I'm not rejecting what you say, I'm just looking for more specific examples because I don't follow you.


I'm just raising it as something I've noticed. edit: and it's certainly not true in every case. Also, do not take this to mean that I'm using you as an example.. I most emphatically am not saying that.

BTW 82 - i really enjoyed being introduced to the material you just posted, thanks!



Im curious about this as well and interested in specific examples - (see reply to Annie )


I believe if you look at what annie wrote you'll see that she suggested an example of the behaviour in question. Hope that helps. :)
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What's next? An endorsement of urophilia?

Postby 82_28 » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:29 pm

annie aronburg wrote:Trolling low-wage female workers at "swanky" Vicotria's Secret for entertainment? That's something to brag about? In a thread about misogyny?


She has had a couple of other to me, minor, go arounds with myself in the past. Once telling me she was going put me on her "enemies" list Another time when "it smelled like balls in here" in a sports related thread (which honestly, in and of the free nature of RI, did offend me). Then I had the one, two, three punch of barracuda gettin' on me about something about using derivations of "fuck" too much in regards to another user and then Jeff's opinion that my "urination tales" had no place in this thread. I have never meant any harm here or anywhere.

However, I know annie's type in meat space and little does she know that her being a woman has anything to do with my problem with her (writ authority in general), but everything to do with annie being a woman in annie's mind and how she determines the rest of the world react to her, such as myself and her degrading tone. And it is just fine by me that people like that exist, however, bear in mind that people like me also exist. But, I do carry a profane tone and I can see where people will always see my profanity before they ever read or hear what it is I am saying. I've long been warned about this proclivity of mine.

However, I was at the time of my tales trying to salvage what was going on with Stephen and the rest. I like Stephen. He's a grumpy fucker. But he is also thoughtful and he helped me some with Linux. I was trying to change the tone so that people around here weren't totally at each other's throats -- hence my stories annie took offense to. I too believe that annie is grumpy and ultimately passive aggressive. I think she's likable, however, unwarranted hatefulness and unwillingness to see outside of the lines of someone's friendly and forgettable attempts at derailing an online argument will always get a rise out of me simply because I meant no harm.

So, that's the answer to my response upthread, to annie.
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 Searcher08 » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:33 pm

Canadian_watcher wrote:
Searcher08 wrote:
Canadian_watcher wrote:
Nordic wrote:I'm not sure what you're talking about. Men can be pretty damn rough when faced with a challenge from another man! I'm not rejecting what you say, I'm just looking for more specific examples because I don't follow you.


I'm just raising it as something I've noticed. edit: and it's certainly not true in every case. Also, do not take this to mean that I'm using you as an example.. I most emphatically am not saying that.

BTW 82 - i really enjoyed being introduced to the material you just posted, thanks!



Im curious about this as well and interested in specific examples - (see reply to Annie )


I believe if you look at what annie wrote you'll see that she suggested an example of the behaviour in question. Hope that helps. :)


:mrgreen: which I had forgotten Ive already responded to :mrgreen:
Image
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Project Willow » Fri Mar 11, 2011 11:05 pm

Image
User avatar
Project Willow
 
Posts: 4798
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: Seattle
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Searcher08 » Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:00 pm

Image
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby 82_28 » Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:11 pm

Canadian_watcher and others, you will probably enjoy this, also by Robert Green Ingersoll:

Men, Women and Gods:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/g/gardene ... ction.html

Introduction.

Nothing gives me more pleasure, nothing gives greater promise for the future, than the fact that woman is achieving intellectual and physical liberty. It is refreshing to know that here, in our country, there are thousands of women who think and express their own thoughts — who are thoroughly free and thoroughly conscientious — who have neither been narrowed nor corrupted by a heartless creed — who do not worship a being in heaven whom they would shudderingly loathe on earth. Women who do not stand before the altar of a cruel faith with downcast eyes of timid acquiescence, and pay to impudent authority the tribute of a thoughtless yes. They are no longer satisfied with being told. They examine for themselves. They have ceased to be the prisoners of society — the satisfied serfs of husbands or the echoes of priests. They demand the rights that naturally belong to intelligent human beings. If wives, they wish to be the equals of husbands — if mothers, they wish to rear their children in the atmosphere of love, liberty and philosophy. They believe that woman can discharge all her duties without the aid of superstition, and preserve all that is true, pure and tender without sacrificing in the temple of absurdity the convictions of the soul.

Woman is not the intellectual inferior of man. She has lacked — not mind — but opportunity. In the long night of barbarism physical strength, and the cruelty to use it, were the badges of superiority. Muscle was more than mind. In the ignorant age of Faith the loving nature of woman was abused, her conscience was rendered morbid and diseased. It might almost be said that she was betrayed by her own virtues. At best, she secured, not opportunity, but flattery, the preface to degradation. She was deprived of liberty and without that nothing is worth the having. She was taught to obey without question, and to believe without thought. There were universities for men before the alphabet had been taught to woman. At the intellectual feast there were no places for wives and mothers. Even now they sit at the second table and eat the crusts and crumbs. The schools for women, at the present time, are just far enough behind those for men to fall heirs to the discarded. On the same principle, when a doctrine becomes too absurd for the pulpit, it is given to the Sunday School. The ages of muscle and miracle — of fists and faith — are passing away. Minerva occupies at last a higher niche than Hercules. Now, a word is stronger than a blow.

At last we see women who depend upon themselves — who stand self poised the shocks of this sad world without leaning for support against a church — who do not go to the literature of barbarism for consolation, nor use the falsehoods and mistakes of the past for the foundation of their hope — women brave enough and tender enough to meet and bear the facts and fortunes of this world.

The men who declare that woman is the intellectual inferior of man, do not, and cannot, by offering themselves in evidence, substantiate their declaration.

Yet, I must admit that there are thousands of wives who still have faith in the saving power of superstition — who still insist on attending church while husbands prefer the shores, the woods, or the fields. In this way families are divided. Parents grow apart, and unconsciously the pearl of greatest price is thrown away. The wife ceases to be the intellectual companion of the husband. She reads the “Christian Register,” sermons in the Monday papers, and a little gossip about folks and fashions, while he studies the works of Darwin, Haeckel and Humboldt. Their sympathies become estranged. They are no longer mental friends. The husband smiles at the follies of the wife and she weeps for the supposed sins of the husband. Such wives should read this book. They should not be satisfied to remain forever in the cradle of thought, amused with the toys of superstition.

The parasite of woman is the priest.

It must also be admitted that there are thousands of men who believe that superstition is good for women and children — who regard falsehood as the fortress of virtue, and feel indebted to ignorance for the purity of daughters and the fidelity of wives. These men think of priests as detectives in disguise, and regard God as a policeman who prevents elopements. Their opinions about religion are as correct as their estimate of woman.

The church furnishes but little food for the mind. People of intelligence are growing tired of the platitudes of the pulpit — the iterations of the itinerants. The average sermon is “as tedious as a twice-told tale vexing the ears of a drowsy man.”

One Sunday a gentleman who is a great inventor called at my house. Only a few words had passed between us, when he arose, saying that he must go as it was time for church. Wondering that a man of his mental wealth could enjoy the intellectual poverty of the pulpit, I asked for an explanation, and he gave me the following: “You know that I am an inventor. Well, the moment my mind becomes absorbed in some difficult problem, I am afraid that something may happen to distract my attention. Now, I know that I can sit in church for an hour without the slightest danger of having the current of my thought disturbed.”

Most women cling to the Bible because they have been taught that to give up that book is to give up all hope of another life — of ever meeting again the loved and lost. They have also been taught that the Bible is their friend, their defender, and the real civilizer of man.

Now if they will only read this book — these three lectures, without fear, and then read the Bible, they will see that the truth or falsity of the dogma of inspiration has nothing to do with the question of immortality. Certainly the Old Testament does not teach us that there is another life, and upon that question, even the New is obscure and vague. The hunger of the heart finds only a few small and scattered crumbs. There is nothing definite, solid, and satisfying. United with the idea of immortality we find the absurdity of the resurrection. A prophecy that depends for its fulfillment upon an impossibility, cannot satisfy the brain or heart.

There are but few who do not long for a dawn beyond the night. And this longing is born of, and nourished by, the heart. Love wrapped in shadow — bending with tear-filled eyes above its dead, convulsively clasps the outstretched hand of hope.

I had the pleasure of introducing Helen H. Gardener to her first audience, and in that introduction said a few words that I will repeat,

“We do not know, we can not say whether death is a wall or a door, the beginning or end of a day, the spreading of pinions to soar, or the folding forever of wings. The rise or the set of a sun, of an endless life that brings rapture and love to every one.

“Under the seven-hued arch of hope let the dead sleep.”

They will also discover, as they read the “Sacred Volume,” that it is not the friend of woman. They will find that the writers of that book, for the most part, speak of woman as a poor beast of burden — a serf, a drudge, a kind of necessary evil — as mere property. Surely a book that upholds polygamy is not the friend of wife and mother.

Even Christ did not place woman on an equality with man. He said not one word about the sacredness of home, the duties of the husband to the wife — nothing calculated to lighten the hearts of those who bear the saddest burdens of this life.

They will also find that the Bible has not civilized mankind. A book that establishes and defends slavery and wanton war is not calculated to soften the hearts of those who believe implicitly that it is the work of God. A book that not only permits, but commands religious persecution, has not in my judgment developed the affectional nature of man. Its influence has been bad and bad only. It has filled the world with bitterness, revenge, and crime, and retarded in countless ways the progress of our race.

The writer of this little volume has read the Bible with open eyes. The mist of sentimentality has not clouded her vision.

She has had the courage to tell the result of her investigations. She has been quick to discover contradictions. She appreciates the humorous side of the stupidly solemn. Her heart protests against the cruel, and her brain rejects the childish, the unnatural, and absurd. There is no misunderstanding between her head and heart. She says what she thinks, and feels what she says.

No human being can answer her arguments. There is no answer. All the priests in the world cannot explain away her objections. There is no explanation. They should remain dumb, unless they can show that the impossible is the probable — that slavery is better than freedom — that polygamy is the friend of woman — that the innocent can justly suffer for the guilty, and that to persecute for opinion’s sake is an act of love and worship.

Wives who cease to learn — who simply forget and believe, will fill the evening of their lives with barren sighs and bitter tears. The mind should outlast youth.

If, when beauty fades, Thought, the deft and unseen sculptor, hath not left his subtle lines upon the face, then all is lost. No charm is left. The light is out. There is no flame within to glorify the wrinkled clay.

ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.

Hoffman House,

New York, July 22, 1885.


The whole book is available to read at link above.
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)

There's really nothing passive about me.

Postby annie aronburg » Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:41 pm

82_28 wrote:
annie aronburg wrote:Trolling low-wage female workers at "swanky" Vicotria's Secret for entertainment? That's something to brag about? In a thread about misogyny?


She has had a couple of other to me, minor, go arounds with myself in the past. Once telling me she was going put me on her "enemies" list Another time when "it smelled like balls in here" in a sports related thread (which honestly, in and of the free nature of RI, did offend me). Then I had the one, two, three punch of barracuda gettin' on me about something about using derivations of "fuck" too much in regards to another user and then Jeff's opinion that my "urination tales" had no place in this thread. I have never meant any harm here or anywhere.

However, I know annie's type in meat space and little does she know that her being a woman has anything to do with my problem with her (writ authority in general), but everything to do with annie being a woman in annie's mind and how she determines the rest of the world react to her, such as myself and her degrading tone. And it is just fine by me that people like that exist, however, bear in mind that people like me also exist. But, I do carry a profane tone and I can see where people will always see my profanity before they ever read or hear what it is I am saying. I've long been warned about this proclivity of mine.

However, I was at the time of my tales trying to salvage what was going on with Stephen and the rest. I like Stephen. He's a grumpy fucker. But he is also thoughtful and he helped me some with Linux. I was trying to change the tone so that people around here weren't totally at each other's throats -- hence my stories annie took offense to. I too believe that annie is grumpy and ultimately passive aggressive. I think she's likable, however, unwarranted hatefulness and unwillingness to see outside of the lines of someone's friendly and forgettable attempts at derailing an online argument will always get a rise out of me simply because I meant no harm.

So, that's the answer to my response upthread, to annie.


I'm just gonna quote this for the people that have you on ignore.
"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.
User avatar
annie aronburg
 
Posts: 1406
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Smokanagan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: There's really nothing passive about me.

Postby 82_28 » Sat Mar 12, 2011 5:31 pm

annie aronburg wrote:I'm just gonna quote this for the people that have you on ignore.


See? God, you're vindictive and hurtful. Ugh. You literally do nothing but be mean. The whole damned world has me on this "ignore" you speak of, I'm rather used to it. Way to "play ball" fellow member. Super-duper cool of you. It's like you don't even understand anything outside of what goes on inside your brain.

In about an hour, I'm going to laugh. For now. . .

:evil:
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 brainpanhandler » Sun Mar 13, 2011 9:03 pm

:crybaby @8228, gawd, you so need an intervention or a blanky or something.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5121
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby 82_28 » Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:21 am

Got both brah. Just got home from seeing Adam Carolla front row (free tix flowed by new job). You just wouldn't believe the shit he was saying about the wimz -- funny that, nobody was offended. Twyla came to visit me at my new bar today. All in all, a misogynsitcally free day full of fucking swearing, alcohol pouring and misogyny. Jesus fucking christ, chill the fuck out with your "OMFG there's an argument on RI shit where somebody is pushing boundaries of what is OK and I'm gonna tell this fucker, 82_28, that he's a dick, pansy, blanky needing motherfucker". Why can't some read between the lines of Internet conversation? It's a fucking epidemic of people microscopically focusing on shit that doesn't matter. How I write here is exactly how I talk and exactly how I feel. I'd throw you out my bar if you were such a "badass" in real life. However, all y'all need to quit being anonymous cocks. Look at the context of what you read and the history of the author. Jesus, you're no fucking better than any of us. Ugh. It is so disheartening to see how peeps come out the woodwork to just simply pile on. For, literally no reason.

Yo, brainpanhandler, you read any of that 19th century Ingersoll I linked you to? Well, there it is. Yet, this has no use in this thread, because insulting one another is the mode and hatred towards character. Whatever. Everybody is always the same in any Internet messageboard. Sucks, but there are always going to be people who do not get that once you double up the personalization, it becomes personal. You hate what I have to say just because of the way I said it, the problem is with you. It's yours not mine. Idealistically, I really do enjoy it here. But all you fuckers can just "have problems" with one another till kingdom come and you can chat amongst yourselves until there's only Jeff left and a bunch of assholes who are no longer on "speaking terms". Jesus.
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 wintler2 » Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:38 am

82_28, this has been an interesting thread, could you take your complaining somewhere else? It is neither interesting nor relevant.
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Jeff » Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:40 am

82_28, if your next post in this thread isn't an apology for it's disruption, I'm going to give you a March Break from posting.
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby 82_28 » Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:13 am

I apologize to the board, the board and community only, as 82_28 does respect it.

I apologize to the members who likewise offended me.

However, I maintain I still didn't do anything that wasn't warranted.
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)
PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 163 guests