Thank justdrew for that. He jumped on Jack's request for a Guy Fawkes emoticon.crikkett wrote:
(OT: Jeff, this![]()
![]()
almost makes up for you not giving us a hug smilie)
As for hugs, we do have this one if you click "View more smilies":
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Thank justdrew for that. He jumped on Jack's request for a Guy Fawkes emoticon.crikkett wrote:
(OT: Jeff, this![]()
![]()
almost makes up for you not giving us a hug smilie)
My wife, something similar.crikkett wrote:[So does my husband!norton ash wrote:She calls RI pornography for depressives.![]()
yeah, I get it. I am having a hard time really finding the line between them, that's all. Like I said in the OP, everyone is going to have their different personal feelings about it. When I have been objectified, I have felt hated.23 wrote:In my past life, CW, I dealt with many managers and executives.Canadian_watcher wrote:Actually, 23, that video you posted above does seem to illustrate a level of hatred towards women. That is inasmuch as hate can be unconscious. The video demonstrates that some people become so comfortable with their disdain for others that they don't feel any shame in objectifying, denigrating and harassing those others. That's pretty close to hate, imo.
They exhibited generous portions of condescending, differentiated behavior towards the female members of their staff. It was quite apparent, to me, that they viewed them as subordinate to them.
I also got to know their wives at certain functions. Saw the same transaction between them and their wives.
Did not see evidence of hatred so much, though. Rather, they viewed women as subordinate objects.
Just saying that subordination/objectification is what ails my male counterparts more than hatred.
yes, definitely. But you can't "treat someone with hate" as much as you can treat them with disdain. Maybe the one is the manifestation of the other?crikkett wrote:Don't you think that hate is a stronger emotion than disdain? Hate is obsessive, hate rages, hate is irrational. Disdain, well, meh.Canadian_watcher wrote:Actually, 23, that video you posted above does seem to illustrate a level of hatred towards women. That is inasmuch as hate can be unconscious. The video demonstrates that some people become so comfortable with their disdain for others that they don't feel any shame in objectifying, denigrating and harassing those others. That's pretty close to hate, imo.
I'm skeptical about that. It seems to me that people often think in terms of dichotomies and that gender seems a universal dichotomy for people. It also seems to me that the solution for misogyny as an ideology often proposed is to abandon the dichotomy of gender in favor of an ideology of universal persons. The practical problem with such a solution is that the pretense of no-difference can obscure the disadvantaging of women and girls which result from people actually making a distinction about gender.The Mind is ultimately free of gender.
word.23 wrote:As an aside, hate, like love, is highly overrated, IMO.
I rarely see hate as the motivator for someone's abusive conduct towards someone else.
Instead, I see insecurity... fueled by the most predominant catalyst for abusive action: fear.
Fear deserves our attention more than hatred, IMO. As the primary instigator of abusive treatment.
compared2what? wrote:Rhetorical question.Nordic wrote:No.
But I do have a new response to the OP.
A misogynist culture is one in which it's so normal to look down on women that no man need feel shame for complacently answering a question about misogyny with a post that represented women exclusively in terms of hackneyed stereotypes (ie -- nurturing and pleasant companions, objects of male sexual desire, emotionally needy and/or bitchy).
As well as one in which he doesn't have to worry that anyone will perceive him as overly emotional when he makes a point of irritably standing by the self-indulgence, vanity and overall disregard for the OP that led him to write a post purportedly about how much he loves women and how diminished misogyny is that reaches its hackneyed and stereotypical conclusions about women's experience by considering it exclusively from the perspective of his own emotional centrality and superiority.
I mean: There they are, raising him, or providing an occasion for him to protect their honor and feel big, or validating how exceptionally and loftily non-hostile-toward-women he is really is by obligingly being petty and catty enough to hate each other, or having no discernible personalities or features apart from boobs, an occasional annoying need to talk and a strong devotion to and/or trust in him. What's not to love? It's almost as if the highest role on earth to which women could aspire was "supporting player in Life, starring A Guy."
And why doesn't he have to worry about that, you may wonder? Because, even though what he wrote was thoughtlessly sexist and the topic justified pointing that out, and the poster who did so didn't do it in particularly angry or hysterical or personal terms, he's a guy. And therefore normal. Whereas she's a woman doing something that would make most guys uncomfortable. And therefore either a bitch or crazy or both.
That's misogyny. It's much too much the rule for it to feel like there even is one. Or to feel like hatred of women, for that matter. But that's what it is. Just your basic, normal hatred (or fear) of women. And it's just about always there, really. You just get too used to it to notice it most of the time.
Kind of a shame, imo.
___________________________
Nordic's no more of a misogynist than I am. That's not what I'm saying. We all live in a misogynist culture. And that is.
What kind of bullshit strawman is that? I mean that's some SERIOUS BULLSHIT.Whereas she's a woman doing something that would make most guys uncomfortable. And therefore either a bitch or crazy or both.
She calls RI pornography for depressives.
Re. the above...barracuda wrote:Remarkable how the confines and areas of the question are demonstrated by the above exchange. c2w seems to be telling you how she feels about your comments, and you respond by attempting corrections of her perception of them, followed by a series of attacks on her behaviour of several months ago, which I can only read in the context of this discussion as having something to do with "typical" female behaviors - mostly because, as you suggest, you have no idea what that was about, except possibly "attention-seeking" or "drama". All of which has zero to do with gender.
Oh just stop It!, you great big Girly Man, you!barracuda wrote:Remarkable how the confines and areas of the question are demonstrated by the above exchange. c2w seems to be telling you how she feels about your comments, and you respond by attempting corrections of her perception of them, followed by a series of attacks on her behaviour of several months ago, which I can only read in the context of this discussion as having something to do with "typical" female behaviors - mostly because, as you suggest, you have no idea what that was about, except possibly "attention-seeking" or "drama". All of which has zero to do with gender.