What constitutes Misogyny?

[Jeff]

RI has never been predominantly about free speech. It exists to foster better speech, especially but not exclusively with respect to controversial knowledge. I believe proscribing certain speech and conspiracy memes has helped foster an ethos that makes this place uncommonly valuable by attracting peculiarly intelligent and literate members. I know this can hit you libertarians where it hurts, but a good deal of RI's distinctiveness resides in what has not been permitted, both by guidelines and general consensus. I don't believe I need to post links towards forums where anything goes, but if that's what you want, pm me and I'll point you in their direction.

This was buried a few pages back and I hope it's read by all:

Let me tell you a few things... I did not complain about this thread or any of the posters in it. I did not ask to be a moderator. I did not get Stephen Morgan banned. He is NOT banned. His warped views on women and women's history are stronger than his desire to be here. That hurts me, but I think it proves that the new guidelines were necessary: nothing else anyone could have said would have kept him from making incredibly outlandish and verbose and false claims about females past and present.

Canadian_watcher is correct, and she's taken her punishment for it from a wingeing few of you with pages of tolerant exposition. I deeply regret that she's resigned as moderator. I hope she'll reconsider, but I understand her reason for doing so, and I'm sorry that my drafting her onto the mod team subjected her to such ridiculous abuse and disrespect.

Many of you are behaving like children. And you're hijacking this thread. If you want to discuss Misandry or how women hate each other or Stephen Morgan or freedom of speech, start a thread about it.

This, I disagree with. Please don't start a thread about it.

[crikkett]

Now is not the time to give way to frustration. After all, Rome was not razed in a day.

Thanks for the laugh.

On edit: Holy Cow, Stephen Morgan's run off and Canadian Watcher resigned as moderator? Over this thread?

I'm paying way too much attention to matters in meatspace! I have to catch up.

Jeff, justdrew, moderators: I feel a more gratitude for this forum every day. Thanks, very much.

[brainpanhandler]

you guess you were suggesting very obliquely?

you see why it's difficult to have a proper conversation when people are guessing they may be obliquely suggesting things instead of saying them?

This is not the thread for it. It's just a habit I have of leaving room for the reader to discover meaning on their own.

Like for instance, in response to:

However, I will always call a spade a spade with absolutely no embarrassment.

I could write, "Well good for you. Way to stand your ground. Now put down that shovel before you dig a hole to china.", which I would think is more clever than "Well good for you. Way to stand your ground. Now put down that shovel (otherwise known as a spade) before you dig a hole to china."

Sorry. I realize this thread is not the place for poetic ambiguity.

Here's a concrete for instance:

Some of the women on this thread have observed that men are resistant to recognizing the authority of a woman. I know for myself I heard "Wait til your father gets home" alot as a kid, which was code for "you're going to get spanked when your father gets home", which was code for "Only authoriity with the threat of physical force was to be respected". In my experience this dynamic was/is pretty common.

[Canadian_watcher]

Okay so way back when you said:

In this thread I have often tried to calm the waters

Maybe more than you should have.

Many of you are behaving like children.

Yes. That's plain. I could be entirely wrong, but I am guessing you might not recognize the complete significance of that.

you really meant:

Here's a concrete for instance:

Some of the women on this thread have observed that men are resistant to recognizing the authority of a woman. I know for myself I heard "Wait til your father gets home" alot as a kid, which was code for "you're going to get spanked when your father gets home", which was code for "Only authoriity with the threat of physical force was to be respected". In my experience this dynamic was/is pretty common.

? If not, what were you getting at when you picked apart my post, ie "maybe more than you should have" and "you don't recognize the complete significance of that statement" as in the first quote block above?

[charlie meadows]

And again, now is not the time to give way to frustration. After all, Rome was not razed in a day. There is too much at stake.

sorry ma'am, but now is the time. In my 'real life' I will continue to uphold the values that I know and understand. I will continue learning and trying to converse with people in order to reach better mutual understandings. But on this board, where people often do not speak plainly - or where they choose to ignore the meat of discussion in favour or pointing out that the speaker had a hair out of place - I have just had it with playing coddling and coaxing.

Frustration is by definition not adaptive and not productive. I meant it in this sense. In this sense, then, it is never the time for frustration.

You have a fine opportunity here to effect change. But it will take time. The greater the challenge, the greater the reward.

a little help then, sister!

I'm trying. What constitutes help?

[brainpanhandler]

I apologize. I can completely understand why you are justifiably annoyed.

maybe more than you should have

What I meant was that if you adopt a parenting role (somewhat unavoidable in any authority role, ie moderator (ask Jeff or the mods how little they like playing Nanny) as people will always transfer their relationships with their parents into any relationship with an authority figure) then some people will respond to you as children. I am not assigning blame. I am just pointing at a dynamic I'm observing.

I'm certainly not suggesting that you have been anything less than genuine though. You're admirably straight forward.

[charlie meadows]

Many of you are behaving like children. And you're hijacking this thread. If you want to discuss Misandry or how women hate each other or Stephen Morgan or freedom of speech, start a thread about it.

Sorry. This escaped my attention earlier. Clearly an example of pediaphobia. The child within me is appalled.

Is this helpful?

[Canadian_watcher]

Many of you are behaving like children. And you're hijacking this thread. If you want to discuss Misandry or how women hate each other or Stephen Morgan or freedom of speech, start a thread about it.

Sorry. This escaped my attention earlier. Clearly an example of pediaphobia. The child within me is appalled.

Is this helpful?

yeah, it's super helpful in demonstrating the chicken-shit way you're undermining the discussion.

[Canadian_watcher]

I apologize. I can completely understand why you are justifiably annoyed.

maybe more than you should have

What I meant was that if you adopt a parenting role (somewhat unavoidable in any authority role, ie moderator (ask Jeff or the mods how little they like playing Nanny) as people will always transfer their relationships with their parents into any relationship with an authority figure) then some people will respond to you as children. I am not assigning blame. I am just pointing at a dynamic I'm observing.

I'm certainly not suggesting that you have been anything less than genuine though. You're admirably straight forward.

thank you - I'm glad we've been able to get to a point where we understand each other at least on this one point.
I'm sorry that it has come too late, though, for me to believe its sincerity.

[charlie meadows]

By way of introduction (of a kind), I had the good fortune to pursue graduate assistant responsibilities to this educator, and author of this book...

http://www.amazon.com/Beauvoir-Second-S ... 0742512460

not in the Women's Studies department, but in one of her Philosophy 101: Critical Thinking classes.

Saying so does not in any way give me credibility about feminist issues. In fact, she and I never talked about feminist issues, that I recall. But it did place me in reas media regarding feminist issues at our campus. Especially within what might be described as a palpable emotional environment, which was not at all homogeneous in its content. That is to say, the content, and moreover, the tone of discussions, rise and fall, which were in intermittent flux in and around the Women's Studies department (and the rest of the Philosophy department as well) were an education in themselves.

Much of the conversation raised the meaning of 'some to most' and 'most to all' (as Nordic et al are wont to do), and some of the conversation attempted to ameliorate that exaggeration. And you could hear it in the content, and the pitch, and the timbre of raised voices and hushed whispers.

We don't have the advantage here to capture and interpret the pitch and the timbre, and we strain to intuit the emotional content in the printed word. We lose the chance to interact on that level. Mostly. We lose the opportunity to comfort and nurture each other. It adds to the burden, the challenge, but ultimately to the reward.

[Canadian_watcher]

Now is not the time to give way to frustration. After all, Rome was not razed in a day.

Thanks for the laugh.

On edit: Holy Cow, Stephen Morgan's run off and Canadian Watcher resigned as moderator? Over this thread?

I'm paying way too much attention to matters in meatspace! I have to catch up.

Jeff, justdrew, moderators: I feel a more gratitude for this forum every day. Thanks, very much.

crikket - for me it's not about this thread alone. Responses to my welcome thread and the guidelines thread are also to blame. I'm not up for being a punching bag.

[Project Willow]

You appear not to grant those demands to others who those disagree with you. Instead of seeing people with attitudes you dont like, you equate a person's worth with the proximity of their views to your own.

You are absolutely right in one respect, I do make value judgments against people who express hatred of others solely based on their sex, race, class, religion, and/or sexual orientation. I don't view this as simply having a different opinion because these opinions have consequences that involve harm to other people. I would no more wish to engage in a lengthy debate with someone who hated women than I would volunteer to marry a man who beat me every day. I'm sorry that doesn't make sense to you.

Oh, and don't bother calling me a fascist, use the correct term ...feminazi. I'll wear the name proudly.

...............................................

Canadian_watcher, I am sad that the difficulties are driving you from your post. I think you've done very well and I appreciate all of your efforts. I'm with you too sister.

[wintler2]

I'm interested in the internal transaction of misogyny, how it runs in the head for individuals. I'll keep it in the first person so there can be no misunderstandings, lol.
When/if i make a woman an object of hate, usually to rationalise exploiting her in some way and/or dump -ve emotions, i'm not thinking 'i hate her because shes a woman'. I'm thinking:
'that $#% is stuck up / doesn't respect me' = doesn't give me the attention my culture tells me i can expect from women
'that #$ is a whore' = is less sexually available to/monopolised by me than i would like
My sexist assumptions are pre-existing, i think it is when they are repeatedly challenged by reality and i fail to adapt my worldview that i erupt into hate, attempting to, as misogynistic me sees it, right the balance. If i commit a "crime of passion" aka assault, the cops might be called, and i'll say "she deserved it" (for not obeying my assumptions around how she/women should behave).

[Searcher08]

You appear not to grant those demands to others who those disagree with you. Instead of seeing people with attitudes you dont like, you equate a person's worth with the proximity of their views to your own.

You are absolutely right in one respect, I do make value judgments against people who express hatred of others solely based on their sex, race, class, religion, and/or sexual orientation. I don't view this as simply having a different opinion because these opinions have consequences that involve harm to other people. I would no more wish to engage in a lengthy debate with someone who hated women than I would volunteer to marry a man who beat me every day. I'm sorry that doesn't make sense to you.

Oh, and don't bother calling me a fascist, use the correct term ...feminazi. I'll wear the name proudly.
.

Well according to urban dictionary, which is always my first stop for this sort of thing, that means "a woman waging a gender war against men". To which I would say, well, whatever floats your boat...

No, it does make sense to me, I just really really disagree with you and that seems to drive you crazy. To me , you seem to only find value in people who share your ideology. I never have had any problem with human beings of different sex, race, class, religion, sexual orientation or whatever. I have no problem communicating with people from any of the above.

Creating a cognitive monoculture, where the only views accepted are those within your paradigm has the effect of stopping engagement with people outside of that. Personally, given the rate of change of events in the world, I think that is as dumb as a sack of spanners - and can provide loads of personal evidence for a refusal to speak with people whose world-view one detests as being ultimately counter-productive. Everyone on this planet is very very connected at multiple levels of economy, social networking, information - the days of being able to ignore people or groups you really don't like seem very last Millennium to me.

Your stance is the same pattern to me as people who "refuse to speak to terrorists" - when, very often, that is the thing which MOST needs to take place. Sometimes those people need to be heard. I grew up in a sea of this attitude "We will not speak with those (terrorists) whose hate us and blow us up". Am I minimising the pain, loss, grief, fear, the people who had experienced loss through them? Absolutely NOT! How would I know? Because I am one of those people. Am I endorsing the point of view of the terrorists? Not so fast!! Am I saying that those people need to get their needs met as well as you and me? Yes.

Sort of like this in a way...
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1916661

[Searcher08]

I'm interested in the internal transaction of misogyny, how it runs in the head for individuals. I'll keep it in the first person so there can be no misunderstandings, lol.
When/if i make a woman an object of hate, usually to rationalise exploiting her in some way and/or dump -ve emotions, i'm not thinking 'i hate her because shes a woman'. I'm thinking:
'that $#% is stuck up / doesn't respect me' = doesn't give me the attention my culture tells me i can expect from women
'that #$ is a whore' = is less sexually available to/monopolised by me than i would like
My sexist assumptions are pre-existing, i think it is when they are repeatedly challenged by reality and i fail to adapt my worldview that i erupt into hate, attempting to, as misogynistic me sees it, right the balance. If i commit a "crime of passion" aka assault, the cops might be called, and i'll say "she deserved it" (for not obeying my assumptions around how she/women should behave).

I really resonate with what you are saying here. From NLP, there is a very useful set of distinctions called 'sub-modalities' which are the sub-units of subjective experience - eg visual sub-modalities include if you are thinking about something in colour vs black and white; if you are looking at the seen vs being 'in it'; if it's bright or dark etc etc.

Typically a person tends to code their own experience in an idiosyncratic way, but often increasing brightness and closeness can increase the feeling response.

Although I have not investigated misogyny and NLP, it would be probable that misogyny has a structure as a belief - someone who thinks "wimminz is da jus da dumb broads for humpin" may actually represent the women in this experience as literal flat 2-d cartoon characters from just their own point of view; OTOH a person who doesnt see women as objects may have mental pictures that feature very 3d, sparkling people and sees a picture of themselves interacting with them... there is so much of value that could come from that field...