What constitutes Misogyny?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Re:

Postby barracuda » Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:49 am

Stephen Morgan wrote:
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,


This is more dribble you've read on your anti-feminist websites. Look at it this way: in 2006, 5,840 deaths occurred in the workplace in the US. In the same period, an estimated 160,000 women were raped or sexually assulted. Welcome to America.

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".


Sometimes I wonder if you even think about these issues for yourself rather than simply regurgitating talking points. Whatever statistics you might use to quantify your premise that it is is "safe to walk alone at night" are at the very least skewed by the fact that it is actually not safe to walk at night, and so women almost never do. And the fact that they wisely and consistently utilise the protective measure of not walking alone at night, has significantly lessened the chance that they will be attacked. Because they aren't alone. At night.

Beyond that completely obvious bit of thoughfulness, yes, I think if a group feels they are historically oppressed, and I can see, and have seen throughout my life that it is actually unsafe for them to walk alone at night in virtually every geographic location I have ever lived in by any measure you care to look at, their feelings might deserve some consideration. So I contrast those observations with observations regarding the feelings of members of a different group which I myself happen to belong to, and whose priviledges as well as oppressions I have experienced my whole life, or at least ever since I came to consciousness regarding basic injustices around me. For whom, I might add, it is not always the best idea to walk alone at night, either. And at some point I decline to insist that the feelings of women are irrelevant to their reality in the world, in the same way that I acknowledge the importance in my life of my own feelings.

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.


Again, do you think they are lying? Or stupid? Or conniving? Statistics simply don't reflect the state of the world in all it's complexity, Stephen. They can be useful for certain models of reality, but not for all models. And I find your ability to parrot anti-feminist statisics in support of what is essentially hate-speech less and less valuable to this discussion as time goes on.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby barracuda » Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:54 am

Nordic wrote: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.


You're right, that is what you said earlier! And it doesn't sound any less retarded the second time around, either. So allow me to congratulate you on the shelf life of your misguidedness. Well done.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby barracuda » Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:58 am

A pure and romantic male heart wrote: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.


I had no idea Percy Shelley was a poster on this forum.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Hammer of Los » Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:21 am

I don't care at all about not being paid.

I much prefer it that way. I hate working for a living in this culture. I think I'm just lazy.

I don't care if people who don't know me despise me, or the work I do. I don't care if people think I'm unmanly.

Once when I told a man what I did, he asked me whether I was concerned that people would think I was un-masculine. I think that was the word he used. Or something of that nature.

I wasn't sure what to answer. I was stumped. My mind went blank. It seemed an odd question. Perhaps I went into a suggestible trance, a la ELP. I just replied, with a chuckle, "no, I don't really think I am concerned." I don't think it seriously occurred to me to worry what other people think about it. I guess he was iterating his own thoughts and fears. I wondered whether he and his wife had ever discussed such an arrangement. He was of an age with me; about halfway through, if I'm lucky! It seemed to me perhaps he was the one worried about being thought unmasculine!

If I was very mean, and I sometimes very rarely am, I would have asked him whether he often considered fears of being thought unmasculine, and where did he think such fears originated?

But instead, I was very very mean, and decided to look deeply into myself to find out the answers to those questions.

What was I saying?

Oh yeah, thanks for the article 23, you know I love you more than words can express? I daresay coming from the Mail, it's a tiresome piece of old rubbish bashing feminism, and trying to get more women to stay at home. I guess there isn't the jobs to go around, New Austerity and all that. I think probably more parents should spend more time with their children. I got the little beggars pretty much 24/7.

And Yarnell Perkins, nice post! Marvellous! Super! I'll quote a bit to remind you of your wisdom!

Yarnell Perkins wrote: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.


I got to go and do some chores now. What a waste of a morning! Some of you must have no work to do at all, you post so much! Before I go, I just can't resist posting this (again);





Love you all!

..edited slightly just because..

It's tough to be a woman, it's also tough to be man. Sure I'll concede it's tougher to be a woman, which is why I consider myself lucky, 'cos I like it easy. I'm also very lucky to be able to have the freedom to choose to do what I want to do. But let's not beat up on each other eh? Too much sarcasm and flame bait around here for my liking. You know I am by inclination a peacemaker; I don't want to see any bannings or disappearances.

ps to Nordic, I don't think I am a doormat, but I will confess to not being 100% certain on that one.

pps Self censorship is sometimes a good idea. You're laying it all out there 82_28, and whilst I understand and appreciate your need to come here for self-expression, it would seem as though others do not. Also Stephen, you might just drop it now if you are sensible, you are getting (absurdly in my opinion) accused of hate speech.
Last edited by Hammer of Los on Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hammer of Los
 
Posts: 3309
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Canadian_watcher » Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:00 am

So far page 23 is looking up. :) I'm tempted not to post what I'm about to post because it certainly doesn't apply to anything posted in the very recent past.. there are LOTS of posts the following doesn't apply to, so no one get their knickers in a knot over nothing.

But here are my thoughts upon waking today:


There have been some terrific dialogues here; many posters whose contributions reassure me that I am safe to explore this topic or express my particular concerns as a woman in our society.

But there have been times when I've not felt that way on this thread and frankly have just wanted to throw my hands in the air because for as far as women have come, the same old bull-headed bullshit - being laughed out of the room, derided into a corner, condescended to and marginalized into oblivion - is happening right here, right now.

When female people express their experience of what they have perceived to be hateful acts against them, those female people’s experiences are cross-examined to detect whether they might be over-reacting. The female people who have made their confession are repeatedly asked if this ‘objectification,’ ‘degradation,’ ‘name-calling,’ ‘systemic lack of access to legal remedy,’ ‘systemic wage disparity,’ ‘domestic violence,’ ‘historical persecution based on myth,’ and more can be separate from truly hateful attitudes or not. In a one-off scenario maybe we could find that hate isn't a motivator but over hundreds of years you get to kind of establish a pattern, don't you think? In either case it seems to me that defending any of the aforementioned acts reveals a hateful mindset.

- While is should be possible to discuss women’s particular struggles in our society without having to compare, contrast and rank them against the struggles of men in our society, that possibility did not come to pass here.

edited to add that this (from first post on this page) bears repeating:
barracuda wrote:Again, do ou think they are lying? Or stupid? Or conniving? Statistics simply don't reflect the state of the world in all it's complexity, Stephen. They can be useful for certain models of reality, but not for all models. And I find your ability to parrot anti-feminist statisics in support of what is essentially hate-speech less and less valuable to this discussion as time goes on.
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 Cedars of Overburden » Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:21 am

Why, thank you, Hammer. Please, call me Nell.
Cedars of Overburden
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 9:54 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby vanlose kid » Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:23 am

i missed this thread until it got into the teens and have been busy so i never got back to reading the beginning until today, but i want to put down some thoughts sparked of by these posts on page three:

compared2what? wrote:... 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).

... 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.


wallflower wrote:... As a guy I am too often oblivious to misogyny. Nevertheless at least some of what I tentatively think of as misogyny is like Henry Higgens in "My Fair Lady" exclaiming: "Why can't a woman be more like a man!" The confusing part is equality is something good and gender neutrality seems as though it's a stance toward equality. So people get really hot defending gender neutrality, even when there are men who can't stand women because they're not more like men. It seems to me that social meanings of gender difference require some examination...

Sorry, I'm as clear as mud, I suspect I'm just writing too late at night. But I'll try to recap what I'm trying to say. First, we participate in an economic order which systematically disadvantages women. That's not good, but I doubt it explains misogyny. Second gender constructs probably do have something to do with misogyny. One can be a [d]isgendered man and not hate women--most men don't hate women. Third, looking at gender as a fundamental way of negotiating through the world, misogyny may entail strongly identifying male gender with good and any other identified with bad. Being man is goodness and goodness is against badness and women. Finally the root of the problem of misogyny [like any form of amorphous hatred, vk] has to do with the sense of self in relation to others.


reading the posts above reminded me of a thought experiment i set up recently for a project on social work among asylum seekers and issues of rights and injustices. it goes like this:

say you have a society of two, A and B, with one ruler or lawgiver (L). say the law given by L grants more rights to A or, conversely, sets greater restrictions on B. now, the question is whether A is unjust towards B? (i know you can complicate the issue by drawing in lots of other considerations but stick with me here.)

as i see it, B might feel that the greater amount of rights that A has been granted (although never mentioned, say) do constitute an injustice, but that does not entail that A is being unjust.

the problem the thought experiment was trying to tease out was the asymmetrical relation between the social worker (A) and the asylum seeker (B). B, being human, obviously feels unjustly done by, whether or not A is cognizant of the fact of A's legal privilege. A takes it for granted, unquestioningly. and this fact alone can upset any form of meaningful relationship between a social worker and an asylum seeker. (in reality things are of course further complicated.) but in this experiment the genders, races, or nationalities, or whatever other classifications of the individual's don't even enter into it. – A and B might be identical twins and L an absent parent. the injustice stems from the fact that both are human but are not treated equally, whatever the justifications for this treatment may be. (starting off from the basis that both are human beings to my mind means that any justifications for this sort of treatment are empty. any rules in that regard are built into them.)

c2w's remarks on the "invisibility of misogyny" and wallflower's on the "asymmetry of relations" that go by unnoticed brought this to mind. which beings me to C_watcher's post:

Canadian_watcher wrote:a lot of things to discuss here. C2Ws 'new response to the OP' directed at Nordic was excellent (and I agree, I don't think Nordic or anyone posting here is a misogynist) There certainly is a sense that men will respond to women's issues only if they feel like it, not because they are genuinely important. And I guess I can see that that is partly because their guards are up. Fair enough. It's tough to discuss these things without emotion.

Also, the issue that misogyny stems from fear.. I'd agree. For the most part people don't hate things that don't threaten them. I really don't like tomatoes but I couldn't say I hate them (although I am in the habit of dismissing them rudely at parties) Child molesters, on the other hand, I hate. They are threatening.

Misunderstandings and social clumsiness are not misogynistic - Wallflower makes the point that we sometimes fail to grasp the nature of our relationships to each other. While that's true, I think it's important that we try to pay attention, because misunderstandings and social clumsiness, if not corrected, become habit which then become culture...


in that small society of two, A (the social worker or the male per the OP) is the one who feels threatened (if that's the right word) by people who point out this asymmetry or injustice. the same would be the case if A was a naturalized citizen of X and B an immigrant. (one more reason why i work for the abolishment of nation states.) – then again, fearing a loss of privilege does not entail that one has feelings of hatred toward the unprivileged. one might. it just doesn't follow necessarily.

A, if male, may be a misogynist, but A may also be just plain scared of having to move on to a level playing field and will justify the change of rules with whatever "arguments" he/she can drum up. – A, whether naturalized citizen, social worker, or male etc., might get all worked up when B or anyone points out the injustice of A's position by saying things like "those are the rules", "you're a wetback", "it's biological", "if only you were more like me...", "X is superior to Y and therefore..." and on and on.

that's kind of what i was thinking. sorry if not clear.

(no, this is not my final word on the subject, just thinking "out loud". hope that's ok.)

*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Pele'sDaughter » Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:24 am

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/opini ... gewanted=1

The Disposable Woman
By ANNA HOLMES
Published: March 3, 2011

FORTY-THREE minutes into his “special live edition” with Charlie Sheen on Monday night, Piers Morgan finally got around to asking his guest a real question. Before that, Mr. Morgan and Mr. Sheen had mostly traded chuckles and anecdotes about multiday benders, inflated network salaries and meet-ups in Aspen, Colo. But then, after three commercial breaks, Mr. Morgan inquired, “Have you ever hit a woman?”

Two minutes later, with Mr. Morgan apparently satisfied with the actor’s answer that no, women should be “hugged and caressed,” that line of questioning was over.

That Mr. Morgan didn’t press the issue of domestic violence shouldn’t have come as any surprise. CBS executives, not to mention the millions of viewers of his “family” sitcom “Two and a Half Men,” have consistently turned a blind eye toward Mr. Sheen’s history of abusing women. Part of this, of course, is about money. The actor’s F-18 of an id — to borrow a metaphor from Mr. Sheen himself — had long provided the show a steady stream of free publicity. It also helped make Mr. Sheen the highest-paid actor on television, at $1.2 million an episode.

But it’s also about apathy. Even now — after Mr. Sheen began carpet-bombing his bosses in radio rants, prompting CBS to shut down production on the show — observers still seem more entertained than outraged, tuning in to see him appear on every talk show on the planet and coming up with creative Internet memes based on his most colorful statements. And while his self-abuses are endlessly discussed, his abuse of women is barely broached.

Our inertia is not for lack of evidence. In 1990, he accidentally shot his fiancée at the time, the actress Kelly Preston, in the arm. (The engagement ended soon after.) In 1994 he was sued by a college student who alleged that he struck her in the head after she declined to have sex with him. (The case was settled out of court.) Two years later, a sex film actress, Brittany Ashland, said she had been thrown to the floor of Mr. Sheen’s Los Angeles house during a fight. (He pleaded no contest and paid a fine.)

In 2006, his wife at the time, the actress Denise Richards, filed a restraining order against him, saying Mr. Sheen had shoved and threatened to kill her. In December 2009, Mr. Sheen’s third wife, Brooke Mueller, a real-estate executive, called 911 after Mr. Sheen held a knife to her throat. (He pleaded guilty and was placed on probation.) Last October, another actress in sex films, Capri Anderson, locked herself in a Plaza Hotel bathroom after Mr. Sheen went on a rampage. (Ms. Anderson filed a criminal complaint but no arrest was made.) And on Tuesday, Ms. Mueller requested a temporary restraining order against her former husband, alleging that he had threatened to cut her head off, “put it in a box and send it to your mom.” (The order was granted, and the couple’s twin sons were quickly removed from his home.) “Lies,” Mr. Sheen told People magazine.

The privilege afforded wealthy white men like Charlie Sheen may not be a particularly new point, but it’s an important one nonetheless. Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears are endlessly derided for their extracurricular meltdowns and lack of professionalism on set; the R&B star Chris Brown was made a veritable pariah after beating up his equally, if not more, famous girlfriend, the singer Rihanna. Their careers have all suffered, and understandably so.

This hasn’t been the case with Mr. Sheen, whose behavior has been repeatedly and affectionately dismissed as the antics of a “bad boy” (see: any news article in the past 20 years), a “rock star” (see: Piers Morgan, again) and a “rebel” (see: Andrea Canning’s “20/20” interview on Tuesday). He has in essence, achieved a sort of folk-hero status; on Wednesday, his just-created Twitter account hit a million followers, setting a Guinness World Record.

But there’s something else at work here: the seeming imperfection of Mr. Sheen’s numerous accusers. The women are of a type, which is to say, highly unsympathetic. Some are sex workers — pornographic film stars and escorts — whose compliance with churlish conduct is assumed to be part of the deal. (For the record: It is not.)

Others, namely Ms. Richards and Ms. Mueller, are less-famous starlets or former “nobodies” whose relationships with Mr. Sheen have been disparaged as purely sexual and transactional. The women reside on a continuum in which injuries are assumed and insults are expected.

“Gold diggers,” “prostitutes” and “sluts” are just some of the epithets lobbed at the women Mr. Sheen has chosen to spend his time with. Andy Cohen, a senior executive at Bravo and a TV star in his own right, referred to the actor’s current companions, Natalie Kenly and Bree Olson, as “whores” on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program on Tuesday. Arianna Huffington sarcastically tweeted that Mr. Sheen’s girlfriends “symbolize modesty, loyalty and good taste.” Mr. Sheen’s own nickname for Ms. Kenly and Ms. Olson — “the goddesses” — is in its own way indicative of their perceived interchangeability and disposability.

It’s these sorts of explicit and implicit value judgments that underscore our contempt for women who are assumed to be trading on their sexuality. A woman’s active embrace of the fame monster or participation in the sex industry, we seem to say, means that she compromises her right not to be assaulted, let alone humiliated, insulted or degraded; it’s part of the deal. The promise of a modern Cinderella ending — attention, fame, the love and savings account of a rich man — is always the assumed goal.

Objectification and abuse, it follows, is not only an accepted occupational hazard for certain women, but something that men like Mr. Sheen have earned the right to indulge in. (Mr. Sheen reportedly once said that he didn’t pay prostitutes for the sex; he paid them “to leave.”) One can’t help but think that his handlers might have moved more quickly to rein in their prized sitcom stallion if his victims’ motivations weren’t assumed to be purely mercenary. (Or if they enjoyed parity and respect with regards to their age, influence and earning power.)

These assumptions — about women, about powerful men, about bad behavior — have roots that go way back but find endorsement in today’s unscripted TV culture. Indeed, it’s difficult for many to discern any difference between Mr. Sheen’s real-life, round-the-clock, recorded outbursts and the sexist narratives devised by reality television producers, in which women are routinely portrayed as backstabbing floozies, and dreadful behavior by males is explained away as a side effect of unbridled passion or too much pilsner.

As Jennifer Pozner points out in her recent book “Reality Bites Back: The Troubling Truth About Guilty-Pleasure TV,” misogyny is embedded within the DNA of the reality genre. One of the very first millennial shows, in fact, “Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire,” was notable in that it auctioned off what producers called the “biggest prize of all”: a supposedly wealthy B-movie writer named Rick Rockwell — who was later revealed to have had a restraining order filed against him by a woman he’d threatened to kill. According to Ms. Pozner, the reaction of one of the producers of “Multimillionaire” was, “Great! More publicity!”

On reality television, gratuitous violence and explicit sexuality are not only entertainment but a means to an end. These enthusiastically documented humiliations are positioned as necessities in the service of some final prize or larger benefit — a marriage proposal, a modeling contract, $1 million. But they also make assault and abasement seem commonplace, acceptable behavior, tolerated by women and encouraged in men.

Which brings us back to Mr. Morgan, who, like many of Mr. Sheen’s past and present press enablers, showed little to no urgency in addressing the question of violence against women. “You’re entitled to behave however the hell you like as long as you don’t scare the horses and the children,” Mr. Morgan said at one point. Scaring women, it seems, was just fine.

During the interview, a series of images played on a continuous loop. One of them was a defiant and confident-looking Charlie Sheen, in a mug shot taken after his 2009 domestic violence arrest.
Don't believe anything they say.
And at the same time,
Don't believe that they say anything without a reason.
---Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Pele'sDaughter
 
Posts: 1917
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:45 am
Location: Texas
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Canadian_watcher » Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:37 am

vanlose kid wrote:say you have a society of two, A and B, with one ruler or lawgiver (L). say the law given by L grants more rights to A or, conversely, sets greater restrictions on B. now, the question is whether A is unjust towards B?

...

the injustice stems from the fact that both are human but are not treated equally, whatever the justifications for this treatment may be. (starting off from the basis that both are human beings to my mind means that any justifications for this sort of treatment are empty. any rules in that regard are built into them.)


:thumbsup -- the problem of inequality is entrenched when those who benefit refuse to acknowledge it, do not fight to balance it - or worse, justify it and use their advantage to prop up or become L.
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 norton ash » Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:55 am

-- the problem of inequality is entrenched when those who benefit refuse to acknowledge it, do not fight to balance it - or worse, justify it and use their advantage to prop up or become L.


The men and women who earn the most money are, for the most part, propping up and becoming L. But that's the class struggle with regard to money-and-power inequality, of course. Back to misogyny, and I'll try not to hate too much on the women in the boardrooms.

Nope, can't do it. That type of human remains my enemy.
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 vanlose kid » Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:01 am

norton ash wrote:
-- the problem of inequality is entrenched when those who benefit refuse to acknowledge it, do not fight to balance it - or worse, justify it and use their advantage to prop up or become L.


The men and women who earn the most money are, for the most part, propping up and becoming L. But that's the class struggle with regard to money-and-power inequality, of course. Back to misogyny, and I'll try not to hate too much on the women in the boardrooms.

Nope, can't do it. That type of human remains my enemy.


that's part of why talking of women (or men) in boardrooms as representative of women (or men) in general is to fudge the issue really. when it's expressive of class inequalities.

[things] is complicated, yo!

*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Canadian_watcher » Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:19 am

norton ash wrote:
-- the problem of inequality is entrenched when those who benefit refuse to acknowledge it, do not fight to balance it - or worse, justify it and use their advantage to prop up or become L.


The men and women who earn the most money are, for the most part, propping up and becoming L. But that's the class struggle with regard to money-and-power inequality, of course. Back to misogyny,


Not for the most part. The "most part" of humanity is poor and I don't think their oppression by a handful of rich could exist without their support and collusion.
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 norton ash » Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:22 am

Canadian_watcher wrote:
norton ash wrote:
-- the problem of inequality is entrenched when those who benefit refuse to acknowledge it, do not fight to balance it - or worse, justify it and use their advantage to prop up or become L.


The men and women who earn the most money are, for the most part, propping up and becoming L. But that's the class struggle with regard to money-and-power inequality, of course. Back to misogyny,


Not for the most part. The "most part" of humanity is poor and I don't think their oppression by a handful of rich could exist without their support and collusion.


C_W, you sure flunked THAT reading comprehension test... for the most part.
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 23 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:31 am

If I were a ruler of slaves,
it would serve me greatly
to get my slaves to focus on
the differences in each other...
and to blame each other
for their common feelings
of enslavement...
then for them to see
that their commonality lies
in their enslavement to me.

Two words:
wage slavery.
"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 Canadian_watcher » Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:48 am

norton ash wrote:
Canadian_watcher wrote:
norton ash wrote:
-- the problem of inequality is entrenched when those who benefit refuse to acknowledge it, do not fight to balance it - or worse, justify it and use their advantage to prop up or become L.


The men and women who earn the most money are, for the most part, propping up and becoming L. But that's the class struggle with regard to money-and-power inequality, of course. Back to misogyny,


Not for the most part. The "most part" of humanity is poor and I don't think their oppression by a handful of rich could exist without their support and collusion.


C_W, you sure flunked THAT reading comprehension test... for the most part.


please elaborate. I can't see where I missed what you said.
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)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 178 guests