rigorousintuition.ca

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:02 pm**

Because the subject has raised its head here, I thought a whole new thread might be appropriate. I'm not kidding, not taking swipes. I think the topic in this day and age may well be misunderstood.

Granted, there are different levels of tolerance in different people and so all answers to the question are necessarily personal. We aren't going to pin down an exact definition, I don't think - nothing past the dictionary's "hatred of women" anyway. Maybe by openly discussing it we might come to better mutual understandings. At the very least it's sort of an exercise in clearing the air.

I'll start. I found the most awful website in the first page of results from a google search for 'what is misogyny.' I think it fits the bill nicely. Too nicely, in fact, because it really makes me sick. To think that obviously this was tended to and loved by someone alive in the recent past is extremely hurtful to me as a woman, mother, sister, friend, human being.

check it out: http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/index.html

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:13 pm**

helloooo ladies

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:33 pm**

Have you heard of Tom Leykis? I think you might like him! /sarcasm

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:38 pm**

Really, I think treating the noun "women" as if it has any inherent, objective qualities is right where it starts. Just like "Blacks" or "Mexicans" -- no good will come of that simple but fatal mistake. I believe it's called a Category Error but I might be mixing up my, uh...categories.

Please Note: for reasons involving quaternions and clifford algebras, this principle does not actually apply to my frequent and liberal libel of the white race, or as they're scientifically known, "Crackers." All of my generalized observations about Crackers are not only accurate, they're also piercingly astute and brilliantly written.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:54 pm**

Wombaticus Rex wrote:Really, I think treating the noun "women" as if it has any inherent, objective qualities is right where it starts. Just like "Blacks" or "Mexicans" -- no good will come of that simple but fatal mistake. I believe it's called a Category Error but I might be mixing up my, uh...categories.

Where it starts is surely in childhood conditioning - differential treatment and valuation based on sex, well beyond anything that could be come from biological differences alone. Categorical fallacies are always a part of the answer, but the categories are generated in the first place by a social consensus.

.

Posted: **Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:05 am**

Here's a question - is this misogyny?

http://news.mensactivism.org/

Or this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_movement

Because if you plan on debating Stephen, this is the territory, or something very close. I'm pretty certain he'll have some qualifications regarding these particular links, but the general thrust is represented there.

Posted: **Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:19 am**

barracuda wrote:Here's a question - is this misogyny?

http://news.mensactivism.org/

Or this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_movement

Because if you plan on debating Stephen, this is the territory, or something very close. I'm pretty certain he'll have some qualifications regarding these particular links, but the general thrust is represented there.

Oh that first site is indeed vomitous. I didn't look at the second link.

I don't plan on debating Stephen. I'd say that from a woman's standpoint there's no debating Stephen. He doesn't care what I say since I'm *less than* and I don't care what he says because, well, I don't care.

Posted: **Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:29 am**

Canadian_watcher wrote:Oh that first site is indeed vomitous.

Can you be more specific? One of the issues with this topic in general is the gag reflex which often disallows analysis over simple revulsion. I think if you're going to answer the OP question, you have to transcend that somehow.

I didn't look at the second link.

It's more of a theoretical overview. Again, to understand what you are up against beyond simple woman-hate, please have a look.

I don't plan on debating Stephen. I'd say that from a woman's standpoint there's no debating Stephen. He doesn't care what I say since I'm *less than* and I don't care what he says because, well, I don't care.

Then why did you start the thread? To raise awareness? Which I'm all for, but you must have figured that he might participate.

Posted: **Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:31 am**

barracuda wrote:Here's a question - is this misogyny?

http://news.mensactivism.org/

Or this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_movement

Because if you plan on debating Stephen, this is the territory, or something very close. I'm pretty certain he'll have some qualifications regarding these particular links, but the general thrust is represented there.

Well there is a more creative and humanist idea of a men's movement, exemplified by "Iron John" among other things.
http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/H ... _John.html

Love it or not.

For a view of what goes on inside men I'd recommend David Foster Wallace's Brief Interviews With Hideous Men.

Posted: **Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:36 am**

Misogyny is fucking bullshit. We have different ways about ourselves as these "demarcated" sexes. Yet we don't. The more we believe we do, the greater the divide that never ever existed.

HOWEVER:

I will join in on an argument that pits women against men within reason. Like I was saying to a friend of mine earlier today (female), when you're in your teens and twenties you can't figure the "chicks" out, as all you want is sex and a future, yet get neither to your satisfaction. Then you get into your thirties and you wind up with some "hag" who you also happen to love for all of time and she wants sex, but you don't. Then she gets to pull on you the "oh, so we're just friends now?" routine. In my head, I've given females in my life everything I could according to my age at the time and then as I get to the age where I can recognize them as non sex objects, it becomes suddenly awful that I'm not "chasing" her with the youthful aplomb I once did.

Also our crazy moms have a bit to do with it too.

Report: Mom Just Locked Her Door

ROANOKE, VA—According to reports from stunned Melberg family sources, Mom just walked up the stairs, slammed the door to her bedroom, and locked it.

The shocking incident occurred shortly before dinner time in the Melberg home at 46 Fairmoor St. Although Mom had reportedly been silently chopping vegetables in the kitchen, showing no signs of outward agitation or anger, multiple sources confirmed seeing her walk briskly through the living room and up the stairs before locking herself in her bedroom at approximately 6:38 p.m.

At press time, witnesses were sitting on the living room couch in stunned silence.

"Is Mom mad?" Tyler, 8, asked following the unprecedented incident. "You guys, I think Mom's mad."

"It wasn't me," Katie, 11, told reporters. "I was just sitting here. I didn't do anything."

Mom, 46, has not emerged from behind the locked door, nor has she given any indication as to when or if she will return to the kitchen to resume making dinner, sources said.

Speculation persists as to what could have provoked Mom's tense exit, with some citing the failure of Tyler to pick up his toys from the staircase, and others placing the blame on Katie and Joseph's repeated failure to set the table as requested, or on Dad failing to put his book down and help out for once.

Katie, who reiterated that she wasn't ignoring Mom and was going to do her homework in a little while after she was done talking to her friend Amanda, claimed multiple other factors played a role in the episode.

"Joseph was the one who wouldn't get off the computer to come down for dinner," she said. "And then Tyler was making gun sounds and being annoying like always."

"Quiet, you guys," Tyler interjected. "She's going to get madder."

Inquiries are currently being made into whether or not it would be okay to turn the television on, though many at the scene believed that the sound of the family guiltlessly enjoying a TV show could actually exacerbate an already tense situation.

The Melbergs were also reportedly unsure of what to do about the three pots on the stove and the partially chopped carrots, until Dad eventually decided to leave them there for the time being, while turning off all the burners.

"I wish she'd just come out and yell at us," Joseph Melberg, 10, told reporters.

The family's collective hopes were briefly raised when Mom was heard opening her bedroom door at approximately 6:45 p.m. to use the bathroom, where she ran the water for half a minute before turning off the light, pacing down the hall, slamming her door, and locking it again.

Speculation continued to mount that the evening's developments might somehow affect the status of dessert, or possibly even this weekend's planned trip to the beach. However, Tyler, Joseph, and Katie Melberg were reassured by Dad that the situation would soon blow over.

"She'll be fine," Dad said while picking up a dustpan, sweeping up several crumbs, and then awkwardly standing in the kitchen. "She just needs some time alone."

At press time, Dad thought maybe they should all go out for some ice cream or something.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/report ... oor,17942/

Posted: **Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:48 am**

All's I know is some other women better chime in, 'cause as a guy, I can hardly claim authoriativeness in my response.

Posted: **Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:56 am**

barracuda wrote:Again, to understand what you are up against beyond simple woman-hate, please have a look.

TL;DR version: woman haters have written lengthy essays to justify their opinions. They even use quotes from other people!

Now, you understand what you are up against. In related news, Robert Bly has hijacked "Mythopoetic" from Jung and William Irwin Thompson because it makes him sound smarter.

Posted: **Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:59 am**

barracuda wrote:
Canadian_watcher wrote:Oh that first site is indeed vomitous.

Can you be more specific? One of the issues with this topic in general is the gag reflex which often disallows analysis over simple revulsion. I think if you're going to answer the OP question, you have to transcend that somehow.

I didn't look at the second link.

It's more of a theoretical overview. Again, to understand what you are up against beyond simple woman-hate, please have a look.

I don't plan on debating Stephen. I'd say that from a woman's standpoint there's no debating Stephen. He doesn't care what I say since I'm *less than* and I don't care what he says because, well, I don't care.

Then why did you start the thread? To raise awareness? Which I'm all for, but you must have figured that he might participate.

Ok wow. First just a quick note to say that I plan to respond to each person in an individual post.. so bear with me.

To be more specific about the first link.. I'll select the post about the CDN infanticide ruling first off.

My personal feeling about the validity of the defense of infanticide aside, the fact is that that defense exists in law. The law was not created by women, but by the ruling class, which at the time of the law's creation was made up of men, exclusive of one woman, I believe (Agnes MacPhail). http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-188057879.html

The web site you linked to makes it seem like this is 'just another way women have it over men' seeing that it is an men's advocacy web site.

The second article I'll address from that site is: Miss. mom charged after son's body found in oven

There is absolutely no mention of a father in this article, so what this has to do with men's activism is beyond me, unless of course it is to simply portray women as demons. This article achieves that, handily, for those who are unable to separate the actions of one woman from those of the rest of the female population.

Why did I start the thread if not to debate Stephen? To debate the rest of you. Stephen is a lost cause, any woman can see that. The rest of you though, that's different.

Posted: **Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:03 am**

Wombaticus Rex wrote:TL;DR version: woman haters have written lengthy essays to justify their opinions. They even use quotes from other people!

Now, you understand what you are up against. In related news, Robert Bly has hijacked "Mythopoetic" from Jung and William Irwin Thompson because it makes him sound smarter.

Thanks for the concise synopsis. Can't find much to disagree with about it.

Posted: **Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:10 am**

JackRiddler wrote:
barracuda wrote:Here's a question - is this misogyny?

http://news.mensactivism.org/

Or this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_movement

Because if you plan on debating Stephen, this is the territory, or something very close. I'm pretty certain he'll have some qualifications regarding these particular links, but the general thrust is represented there.

Well there is a more creative and humanist idea of a men's movement, exemplified by "Iron John" among other things.
http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/H ... _John.html

Love it or not.

For a view of what goes on inside men I'd recommend David Foster Wallace's Brief Interviews With Hideous Men.

I looked at the site you linked to. That is not misogyny, IMHO. How could anyone deny the very profound effect absent fathers have on their sons? I agree that the nurturing boys need can not come exclusively from mothers/women. They need fathers. I agree that men are left in a vacuum .. what does it mean to be a man? It has become impossible for them to know that answer. Some might respond to that as if it is a positive: "Great! We can reform men! We can end violence and possessiveness!" Bullshit. Men need fathers or other strong male role-models and I'm not talking about Gordon Gekko or any rap stars or football players here.

But now we're getting into male-centered issues, which isn't what I'm asking about.

rigorousintuition.ca

What constitutes Misogyny?

What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?