What constitutes Misogyny?

[brainpanhandler]

@luposapien,

"as much as I hate to admit it, and as much as I try to overcome them, I've got blind spots aplenty."

Such honest self reflection should not go unacknowledged. Therefore ------->

I didn't find anything particularly offensive about your original post in that thread. Really, this:

I will also admit that my original statement was rather flippant, and overly reductionist.

was pretty much a sufficient explanation. No laws were broken and maybe some learning took place. Woo hoo.

And this:

I don't like to think of myself as a misogynist (though I'm as much a creature of my culture as anyone else, and have my fare share of character defects), so I'm struggling against the urge to go full-on defensive here.

ought to serve as a teaching moment.

[Canadian_watcher]

^ what bph said.

[Luposapien]

Thanks yall. Didn't actually re-read the whole thing, but just remembered that it didn't feel right. In any case, no need to spend any more energy in this thread tending to my ego.

[82_28]

When I was a wee youngster I joined the Colorado Humanists. One of the dudes back then I read a lot of was Robert Green Ingersoll. I had a number of his books published by Prometheus. Who knows what the hell happened to those though. I've basically lent out everything I've ever read. Anyhow, I've always called myself a feminist. I am a guy's guy too.

Here's a weirdly named site that seems to have some of Col. Ingersoll's speeches/lectures.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/lectures/

Any informed freethinker, would agree that Ingersoll was on the forefront of the human rights movement, especially those for women, as in the following example:

"We demand, next, that women be put upon an equality with man. Why not? Why shouldn't men be decent enough in the management of politics of the country for women to mingle with them? It is an outrage that any one should live in this country for sixty or seventy years and be forced to obey the laws without having any voice in making them. Let us give woman the opportunity to care for herself, since men are not decent enough to seek to care for her. The time will come when we'll treat a woman that works and takes care of two or three children as well as a woman dressed in diamonds who does nothing. The time will come when we'll not tell our domestic we expect to meet her in heaven, and yet not be willing to have her speak to us in the drawing-room."

-Robert Ingersoll, "Forty Four Complete Lectures: Human Rights", M.A. Donohue & Co, 1924

Robert Ingersoll held high regards and respect for women and the women's rights movement. As one can see (below) Ingersoll by no means, believed a man should have access to lust after, more than the one woman. That woman being the one he was married and committed to -- for life, family, and home. Clear insight into the meaning of what the Constitution originally intended in regards to Freedom of Speech vs. Pornography (the mass exploitation of females). Ingersoll would roll over in his grave to see the vile levels the Secular Freethought community has sank to within only a little more than a century. He would have been aghast at the liberal lawyers defending pornographic smut as "legitimate free speech". Ingersoll was clear about his beliefs in Human Dignity and Respect. He stood against the plundering and degradation of any group of people.

Ingersoll on Monogamy

"They say that it is morally inspired. Well, let us examine it. I want to be fair about this thing, because I am willing to stake my salvation or damnation on this question, whether the Bible is true or not. I say it is not; and upon that I am willing to wager my soul. Is there a woman here who believes in the institution of polygamy? Is there a man here who believes in that infamy? You say: "No; we do not." Then you are better than your God was four thousand years ago. Four thousand years ago He believed in it, taught it and upheld it. I pronounce it and denounce it the infamies of infamies. It robs our language of every sweet and tender word in it. It takes the fireside away forever. It takes the meaning out of the words father, mother, sister, brother, and turns the temple of love into a vile den where crawl the slimy snakes of lust and hatred. I was in Utah a little while ago, and was on the mountain where God used to talk to Brigham Young. He never said anything to me. I said it was just as reasonable that God in the nineteenth century would talk to a polygamist in Utah as it was that four thousand years ago, on Mount Sinai, he talked to Moses upon that hellish and damnable question.

I have no love for any God who believes in polygamy. There is no heaven on this earth save where the one woman loves the one man and the one man loves the one woman. I guess it is not inspired on the polygamy question.

-Robert Ingersoll, "Forty Four Complete Lectures: Mistakes of Moses", M.A. Donohue & Co, 1924

Ingersoll on Sexual Lust

Here is something from the Old Testament:
"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and they Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou has taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldst have her to wife, Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails." (Deut. XXI., 10,11,12.)

That is in self-defense, I suppose! (Cheers and laughter.)

This sacred book, this foundation of human liberty, or morality, does it teach concubinage and polygamy? Read the thirty-first chapter of Numbers, read the twenty-first chapter of Deuteronomy, read the blessed lives of Abraham, of David or of Solomon, and then tell me that the sacred Scripture does not teach polygamy and concubinage? All the language of the world is not sufficient to express the infamy of polygamy; it makes man a beast and woman a stone. It destroys the fireside and makes virtue an outcast. And yet it is the doctrine of the Bible. The doctrine defended by Luther and Melanthon! It takes from our language those sweetest words father, husband, wife, and mother, and takes us back to barbarism and fills our hearts with the crawling, slimy serpents of loathsome lust.

-Robert Ingersoll, "Forty Four Complete Lectures: Hell", M.A. Donohue & Co, 1924

Ingersoll was a badass.

[Searcher08]

I'll throw something out there that I've seen in my life, just for the hell of it, because I'm unemployed again today (damn women are taking all the jobs!)<------JOKE

In my "day job" I do lighting for the entertainment business. It's probably about 97% guys who do this stuff. Often I am in charge. Probably 97% of the time there aren't women on our crew, because, well, there just are hardly any in existence. It's extremely physically demanding to the point of being brutal, it's a bit dangerous, involves huge amounts of electricity, and honestly it helps to be able to literally throw some weight around. Women just don't get into this field, in general.

On a recent job I hired a young woman. She was really cool and I really like her. She was also pretty green and inexperienced.

I found myself being WAY nicer to her than I would be to a guy of the same experience level. The guy who works directly under me, who is in charge of hiring all of them (with my approval and input), told me I was being too nice to her. He may have been right.

With the guys I'm really strict, and I treat them, well, like guys. With this young woman I treated her with far less strict oversight and with a far more forgiving attitude. I was "nicer". Honestly, with guys, I don't really care about their feelings so much, they're guys and they're gonna have to deal with it. With women? I'm more careful of their feelings.

Now, is that misogyny on my part? Or the opposite?

I'm serious, I'm curious what others think of this.

OK, I'll bite
I think you asked from a place of concern, rather than mere curiosity and that indicates something important.

When a member of your staff crosses the organisational power line of 'telling off the boss', people dont tend to do that flippantly, there may have been a near rebellion to get to that place, that you may not have seen.

Yes, I think your behaviour WAS misogynistic. Remove the (potential) flirt factor from the picture. As you say, lighting is heavy, potentially dangerous work that you and your crew do, yet with her you show

"far less strict oversight and with a far more forgiving attitude

- if I had been on that crew, my thoughts would have been around an accident happening because of this.

You were treating a colleague differently purely on the basis of gender; this was (potentially) dangerous. to themselves and the other crew - as you said they were green AND less experienced AND you provided less correction.

As penance, you need to watch this video from the UK about Apprentices

[Nordic]

OK, I'll bite
I think you asked from a place of concern, rather than mere curiosity and that indicates something important.

When a member of your staff crosses the organisational power line of 'telling off the boss', people dont tend to do that flippantly, there may have been a near rebellion to get to that place, that you may not have seen.

Yes, I think your behaviour WAS misogynistic. Remove the (potential) flirt factor from the picture. As you say, lighting is heavy, potentially dangerous work that you and your crew do, yet with her you show

"far less strict oversight and with a far more forgiving attitude

- if I had been on that crew, my thoughts would have been around an accident happening because of this.

You were treating a colleague differently purely on the basis of gender; this was (potentially) dangerous. to themselves and the other crew - as you said they were green AND less experienced AND you provided less correction.

I see where you're coming from, but no. No danger involved. She's not stupid, she's very smart, and she's capable. She things I'm talking about being "strict" about are not anything like that, just procedural type things that everybody needs to know, ways of working, setting priorities, ways that we communicate with each other.

Surely you're not suggesting that my favoritism would result in a dangerous working situation. That's a really heinous accusation. Makes me wonder why I even bother posting here.

If somebody thinks it's sort of a reverse misogyny, that's fine, I would understand, but what you're suggesting really misses the mark.

I appreciate the feedback, however.

[Searcher08]

I see where you're coming from, but no. No danger involved. She's not stupid, she's very smart, and she's capable. She things I'm talking about being "strict" about are not anything like that, just procedural type things that everybody needs to know, ways of working, setting priorities, ways that we communicate with each other.

Ahhh - that clarifies that key distinction - my comments had been focused in the capability domain, not the cultural one, The cultural one is obviously much less critical.

Surely you're not suggesting that my favoritism would result in a dangerous working situation. That's a really heinous accusation. Makes me wonder why I even bother posting here.

<Pokes!> Hey No accusation intended - see above ^^

If somebody thinks it's sort of a reverse misogyny, that's fine, I would understand, but what you're suggesting really misses the mark.

I appreciate the feedback, however

No worries. I appreciate it when people ask, even when my arrows of observation from time to time go sailing out of the archery arena, never mind hitting the target

[Canadian_watcher]

another way that a destructive sort of sexism plays out in our culture is the (not so) subtle way that some men will react to challenges from another man, versus the same sort of challenges from women.

I say this gently, because it might be perceived as a challenge, but I think it's worth noting. In serves to 'put women in their place' because it makes women feel like they will be less able to put forth an opinion or suggest a change. "Pick you battles" becomes something different for women, in my experience.

[Nordic]

another way that a destructive sort of sexism plays out in our culture is the (not so) subtle way that some men will react to challenges from another man, versus the same sort of challenges from women.

I say this gently, because it might be perceived as a challenge, but I think it's worth noting. In serves to 'put women in their place' because it makes women feel like they will be less able to put forth an opinion or suggest a change. "Pick you battles" becomes something different for women, in my experience.

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.

[Canadian_watcher]

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!

[vanlose kid]

from here viewtopic.php?p=388838&sid=84a469acf984139016ec322b3b29c3ec#p388838

why are rich people so hell-bent on taking stuff away from those less fortunate? is it some psychotic way of dealing with their guilt? why are billionaires wasting so much time and energy trying to make sure that those who will never even be millionaires have even less? its like some kind of perverted hobby to them, like boys who kill frogs and cats and burn bugs with magnifying lenses.

That's a good analogy, Nordic, and I'd say you've already given a large part of the answer to your own question there. The natural next question is: Why are boys [so often] like that? And what makes them feel they should be like that?

There have been a couple of very pertinent quotes posted here and elsewhere by women in the last week or so:

If we give credence to the research detailing the centrality of affection in father-son relations and the relative irrelevance of the father’s “masculinity,” it becomes clear that boys don’t hunger for fathers who will model traditional mores of masculinity. They hunger for fathers who will rescue them from it. They need fathers who have themselves emerged from the gauntlet of their own socialization with some degree of emotional intactness. Sons don’t want their father’s “balls”; they want their hearts. And, for many, the heart of a father is a difficult item to come by. Oftentimes, the lost boy the depressed son must recover is the one not he but his father has disavowed.

- Terrence Real, quoted by Allegro in the RI "Quote-Only Thread".

Violence is boyhood socialization. The way we ‘turn boys into men’ is through injury… We take them away from their feelings, from sensitivity to others. The very phrase ‘be a man’ means suck it up and keep going. Disconnection is not fallout from traditional masculinity. Disconnection is masculinity.

- bell hooks, quoted by Molly at Qlipoth.

The recent discussions here about misogyny and patriarchy here have been very interesting and timely, and I wish I'd had more time to take part in them.

ON EDIT: See also the Bradley Manning thread. All this stuff is very closely connected - the cruelty and arrogance and vindictiveness of Scott Walker and his ilk & the cruelty and arrogance and vindictiveness of the bastards who are torturing Manning (and calling him a "fag"). Same people, same pathology. One of the names for it is masculinity.

One thing you can't hide
Is when you're crippled inside.

reminded me of this.

A Boy Named Sue by Shel Silverstein

Well, my daddy left home when I was three,
and he didn't leave much to Ma and me,
just this old guitar and a bottle of booze.
Now I don't blame him because he run and hid,
but the meanest thing that he ever did was
before he left he went and named me Sue.

Well, he must have thought it was quite a joke,
and it got lots of laughs from a lot of folks,
it seems I had to fight my whole life through.
Some gal would giggle and I'd get red
and some guy would laugh and I'd bust his head,
I tell you, life ain't easy for a boy named Sue.

Well, I grew up quick and I grew up mean.
My fist got hard and my wits got keen.
Roamed from town to town to hide my shame,
but I made me a vow to the moon and the stars,
I'd search the honky tonks and bars and kill
that man that gave me that awful name.

But it was Gatlinburg in mid July and I had
just hit town and my throat was dry.
I'd thought i'd stop and have myself a brew.
At an old saloon in a street of mud
and at a table dealing stud sat the dirty,
mangy dog that named me Sue.

Well, I knew that snake was my own sweet dad
from a worn-out picture that my mother had
and I knew the scar on his cheek and his evil eye.
He was big and bent and gray and old
and I looked at him and my blood ran cold,
and I said, "My name is Sue. How do you do?
Now you're gonna die." Yeah, that's what I told him.

Well, I hit him right between the eyes and he went down
but to my surprise he came up with a knife
and cut off a piece of my ear. But I busted a chair
right across his teeth. And we crashed through
the wall and into the street kicking and a-gouging
in the mud and the blood and the beer.

I tell you I've fought tougher men but I really can't remember when.
He kicked like a mule and bit like a crocodile.
I heard him laughin' and then I heard him cussin',
he went for his gun and I pulled mine first.
He stood there looking at me and I saw him smile.

And he said, "Son, this world is rough and if
a man's gonna make it, he's gotta be tough
and I knew I wouldn't be there to help you along.
So I gave you that name and I said 'Goodbye'.
I knew you'd have to get tough or die. And it's
that name that helped to make you strong."

Yeah, he said, "Now you have just fought one
helluva fight, and I know you hate me and you've
got the right to kill me now and I wouldn't blame you
if you do. But you ought to thank me
before I die for the gravel in your guts and the spit
in your eye because I'm the nut that named you Sue."
Yeah, what could I do? What could I do?

I got all choked up and I threw down my gun,
called him pa and he called me a son,
and I came away with a different point of view
and I think about him now and then.
Every time I tried, every time I win and if I
ever have a son I think I am gonna name him
Bill or George - anything but Sue.

and the difference between Silverstein's intent and the reception of his version in comparison to Johnny Cash's... there's a difference. they're worlds apart.... the father's "justification" is absurd. doesn't come out that way in Cash's rendering.

*

[annie aronburg]

another way that a destructive sort of sexism plays out in our culture is the (not so) subtle way that some men will react to challenges from another man, versus the same sort of challenges from women.

I say this gently, because it might be perceived as a challenge, but I think it's worth noting. In serves to 'put women in their place' because it makes women feel like they will be less able to put forth an opinion or suggest a change. "Pick you battles" becomes something different for women, in my experience.

You took the thoughts right out of my mind.

And look, you might be doing it right now.

The blackest man I've ever known used to say that racism was someone or something that keeps you from your work.

You may find (as I did) that there will be posters to this board who will only accept moderation from a male-identified user-name. Worse still are the ones who will only accept moderation from Big Poppa. Getting told anything by anyone other than the absolute authority is unbearable.

Misogynists reject even the possibility of female authority, and will do what they can to deny a woman's power in any situation, like in your welcome thread, for instance.

[JackRiddler]

another way that a destructive sort of sexism plays out in our culture is the (not so) subtle way that some men will react to challenges from another man, versus the same sort of challenges from women.

I say this gently, because it might be perceived as a challenge, but I think it's worth noting. In serves to 'put women in their place' because it makes women feel like they will be less able to put forth an opinion or suggest a change. "Pick you battles" becomes something different for women, in my experience.

You took the thoughts right out of my mind.

And look, you might be doing it right now.

The blackest man I've ever known used to say that racism was someone or something that keeps you from your work.

You may find (as I did) that there will be posters to this board who will only accept moderation from a male-identified user-name. Worse still are the ones who will only accept moderation from Big Poppa. Getting told anything by anyone other than the absolute authority is unbearable.

Misogynists reject even the possibility of female authority, and will do what they can to deny a woman's power in any situation, like in your welcome thread, for instance.

Objection! I will accept moderation only from a duly constituted tribunal of my peers in a full trial thread!

Your Excellency, I move for a mistrial!


Some of us are more the type who can't wait for Big Poppa to just try and moderate.

.

[Searcher08]

another way that a destructive sort of sexism plays out in our culture is the (not so) subtle way that some men will react to challenges from another man, versus the same sort of challenges from women.

I say this gently, because it might be perceived as a challenge, but I think it's worth noting. In serves to 'put women in their place' because it makes women feel like they will be less able to put forth an opinion or suggest a change. "Pick you battles" becomes something different for women, in my experience.

You took the thoughts right out of my mind.

And look, you might be doing it right now.

The blackest man I've ever known used to say that racism was someone or something that keeps you from your work.

You may find (as I did) that there will be posters to this board who will only accept moderation from a male-identified user-name. Worse still are the ones who will only accept moderation from Big Poppa. Getting told anything by anyone other than the absolute authority is unbearable.

Misogynists reject even the possibility of female authority, and will do what they can to deny a woman's power in any situation, like in your welcome thread, for instance.

Annie, I agree and I think that the behaviour of the two Sky Sports "newsreaders" around their female colleagues provides an excellent demonstration of what you say. Despite the fact that their female boss was often trying to save their lardy asses, they would have none of it unless the word came from the females boss. I think 'deny a womans power' is not even on their radar because a woman having power is not on their radar - that isnt their function in their world, they literally don't have perceptual apparatus that detects this.

OTOH, I think there are also those women who will do whatever they feel to undermine men, in any situation, for being male.

I have seen what you describe occur from women in business, who would only accept 'orders' from a male up the chain (despite the male up the chain reading them the riot act over this!) It had a different flavour though - it seemed more in the power / threat / respect domain, rather than visibility - obviously a subjective assessment.

[82_28]

another way that a destructive sort of sexism plays out in our culture is the (not so) subtle way that some men will react to challenges from another man, versus the same sort of challenges from women.

I say this gently, because it might be perceived as a challenge, but I think it's worth noting. In serves to 'put women in their place' because it makes women feel like they will be less able to put forth an opinion or suggest a change. "Pick you battles" becomes something different for women, in my experience.

You took the thoughts right out of my mind.

And look, you might be doing it right now.

The blackest man I've ever known used to say that racism was someone or something that keeps you from your work.

You may find (as I did) that there will be posters to this board who will only accept moderation from a male-identified user-name. Worse still are the ones who will only accept moderation from Big Poppa. Getting told anything by anyone other than the absolute authority is unbearable.

Misogynists reject even the possibility of female authority, and will do what they can to deny a woman's power in any situation, like in your welcome thread, for instance.

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. The reason why it is unbearable to be told something from someone who is lame and condescending is because it's the other party putting words and motives into the other person's character and self-actualization. That's not fair. You want fair, then be fair. If you you find yourself being right, authoritative more often than not has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with your emotional defense mechanisms -- nobody is always right. Which may or may not be perceived as fair regardless of your gender or the gender to whom you are attacking/defending yourself against.

We can all hide behind the "insurmountable" differences of our sexes, orientation of such, race, culture blah blah. But we can also all be friends and listen to one another. What condescending people do is act aghast that someone doesn't respect their authority, again, regardless of gender, orientation, race, class, age, culture blah blah.

For instance, what I couldn't stand about the fact that I made it known to the teeming Obama voters of this city that I wouldn't be voting for him and the reasons why, is that my arguments against him were indistinguishable from a racist. Liberals were using the fact that he was black for a reason to pat themselves on the back for doing nothing. (my argument was where the fuck were all you motherfuckers when we were marching against bush and the "wars") Arguing in this vein got one no where. You were made to preface every discussion or conversation with "look, you know I'm not racist, but Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing" etc. Had I stopped beating my wife yet? Had I denounced my klan membership?