What constitutes Misogyny?

[82_28]

Ladies and gentlemen, can we please first get that we're all different? If we're here at RI, I believe, this means we are trustingly "funky" with how we view the day to day morass. I don't believe anyone here has been dishonest and all have expressed themselves with respect of fellow members. I believe we are an open-source team here and while some, such as myself come off gratingly in certain posts, that doesn't mean, woman or man does not have their very own unique take on this existence we have all found ourselves sharing with one another whether we even be woman or man. For instance, if you knew me in real life, I would most certainly not come off as how you imagine me -- if you're thinking I'm a hypocrite or a dick about now. I think this caveat scales into gender differences in and of an online forum as well. All we see are our words and then conflate that with total personality. I refuse to believe that the totality of personality lies within our genders. It plays a major part! But it is not the deal sealer. We are here at RI because we are all curious and we all have tales to tell among distant unseen friends.

Let's just let ourselves be honest and keep this place alive. And Stephen, get the fuck back here. Jesus, just stop treating thoughtful and/or prolific members as though they are fools, just because you disagree with how they say things or how they have come to view shit as they have.

[norton ash]

I think we could abide Morgan here, if he wasn't bound to violate no-hate-against-a-group standards. He's a great library of alternative history and contrarian views, as proven by his strong stands in the 'Witches' thread and this one.

Someone is welcome to step in here and say 'he's a hatemonger and recycles sick old sexist libels.' To be expected. I understand why many feel this way. But his arguments that our gains in equality, and progress in legislation and law, might be diverted into social engineering, might be exploited as new means toward divide-and-conquer and oppression... at least bear thinking about.

Gender-sexism threads are the most dangerous. I don't think a 'What Constitutes Anti-Semitism?' OP would produce anything really useful before being locked. So why do we dare even try it with misogyny?

I appreciate the new posting guidelines, and I agree that Morgan has his foot on the boundary line of preaching hate toward a group.

So I mourn him—I admit it—with a certain... alarm.

[barracuda]

Is that no longer post in this thread, or in R.I.?

I wasn't privvy to the specifics of the message, but my impression was that Stephen had cashed in his chips. Which I view as a mistake on his part, because I don't feel that the guideline as it's composed necessarily imposes a negation of the vast swath of his indominable polemic. Also because I happen to like Stephen, and would miss his voice on any number of subjects which he has always managed to address with his singular confidence and perspective.

Being that this is the case, I suggest we begin an informal private messaging campaign aimed at his username, and attempt to dissuade him of hs hasty decision. In fact, I intend to write him this minute.

[Plutonia]

I'm for it.

[norton ash]

And a toast to those who lead with their chins. Slainte.

If people here speak freely, reveal biases or skewed thinking, are occasionally dipshits, or provide too much information...

Spank them. If they persist in stirring up shit, thump them. But I really don't think there's any percentage in knifing them sharply and swiftly based on grudges, or because they've let their guard down.

I don't mean to be mean much anymore.

[Project Willow]

Because I think it is a real shame and a big loss if someone of his intelligence is 'constructively dismissed' for having views that are not popular, but which he has put a great deal of effort and consideration into.

Racist views are not popular either. Or maybe that needs to be re-examined, should we invite some KKK folks onto the board so that all opinions can be considered? Is that what you're saying Searcher? Are you telling me to lie back and think of think of the revolution and just tolerate hatred of my sex? Are you telling me how to feel about hearing certain ideas? Or is misogyny not comparable to racism, as Stephen claimed? Why not, because you have a dick and don't have to live with it every fucking day, and the way it eats at you with every little reminder. Don't worry your little head dear, it's just a difference of opinion.

I've been trying to express how I really feel as a woman, with real emotion, forbidden emotion if you're a woman, like anger, and that get's labeled as toxic... what? This is some kind of world turned on its head.

I don't understand you, I really don't. It's not OK to hate on any group except it's OK when it's women? I don't understand.

And it's true, you don't listen, you aren't listening, and now you want your own kind of orthodoxy. The number of women who might participate here is rather low as a direct consequence of the long tolerated views of the likes of Morgan. This is not an anti-fascist board.

I should have stayed at the damn bar.

[Project Willow]

I'm glad all you men, Norton, Fish, etc. feel so free and liberated as to be able to speak for all women. Let me bow at your feet.

I hear you regret the absence of your brethren. By all means, call him back, and then fucking close my account in this intolerant sinkhole.

[barracuda]

I'm only speaking for myself, no one else, but I pretty much welcome anyone posting here who is willing to abide by the rules of the place, even if I should happen to disagree with that person, vehemently. Disagreement can help clarify things for me.

But I also understand your position, and respect it, which is why I supported the institution of the new guideline in the first place.

[Jeff]

Is that no longer post in this thread, or in R.I.?

I wasn't privvy to the specifics of the message, but my impression was that Stephen had cashed in his chips. Which I view as a mistake on his part, because I don't feel that the guideline as it's composed necessarily imposes a negation of the vast swath of his indominable polemic. Also because I happen to like Stephen, and would miss his voice on any number of subjects which he has always managed to address with his singular confidence and perspective.

Like barracuda says.

It was Stephen's choice to leave, as he said short of "a severe head injury accompanied by massive personality changes" he did not see how he could observe the guidelines. I told him I didn't wish a concussion upon him, but if he ever could see the way clear, he'll be welcome. His account remains open.

[Kate]

I don't mean to be mean much anymore.

Hey, Norton, can you define "much"? Just kidding, really. [Comes from having to parse every politician's statements' as though I were an attorney taking deposition, looking for those legal loopholes one can drive a semi through. Sigh. Massive corruption in the fascist corporatocracy has altered my thinking patterns forever.]

Now, because I don't have the time to quote individual remarks made about Stephen, and to get straight who said exactly what, I'll make a general statement.

Stephen's always been very interesting (and I've lurked here for years before signing up).

However, here's the bright line, I think. When Stephen would refuse to stop beating the drum, the rhythm of which kept signalling the message, "There IS gender oppression; and WOMEN ARE THE OPPRESSORS. And any historical analysis which concludes that women have been oppressed for many centuries in many ways which are still ongoing in many cultures, is a MISUNDERSTANDING OF HISTORY. (cf. the history of laws concerning rape/marital rape)." (Obviously a paraphrase, not a direct quote, and how I understood what was offensive by my lights.)

THERE is where the bright line is and was crossed, repeatedly.

I mean, when a board owner defines his intent to have an antifascist board with respect for human rights, including the insistence that blatant sexism/misogyny not be permittied to flourish here, how is it a matter of some sort of "unfair" lack of "freedom of speech"?

I forget which poster stressed a dislike for "ideology" here, and I don't want to even look it up, because I'm not calling out that person (or any other). I'm giving everyone a respectful benefit of the doubt which refuses to impute motives not at all clearly in evidence in what I am about to say.

Namely, I want to sound a warning about any insistence of the universal right to say *anything at all* for the sake of *free speech rights* on a board owned and guided by our host (who has the right to formulate limits based on his own goal/vision/purpose for the board itself).

This warning is issued GENERALLY in terms of understanding the parameters of discussion here; let me repeat, I'm not suggesting anyone subscribes to what I'm about to describe: NOT AT ALL!!!

OK, the warning consists of pointing out that fascists/racists/sexists/haters-of-all-stripes have taken to complaining on all manner of internet forums, news website comment sections, blog comments, twitter remarks, etc. etc. etc. that any desire to restrict their vile public spew of hatred and toxic divisiveness and completely UNCIVIL and INSULTING speech represents some sort of: (pick one or mix up several) fascist/communist/totalitarian/dictatorial/Stalinist/Hitleresque CENSORSHIP of their wonderful, innovative, equally valid free-speech blessed-with-liberty OPINIONS -- and any attempt to prevent them from poisoning the atmosphere with Rwanda-level hatred is TANTAMOUNT to attacks on: (pick one or several) Mom, apple pie, the (American) flag, the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, Biblical Truth, God Almighty (insert other equally sacred cows, specific and relevant to other countries and cultures).

Now, I'm not meaning to attack Stephen for the kind of utterly offensive and crude hatred I'm using here as an EXTREME example of the complaint about "NO FAIR! Free Speech Now!!!!"

I'm pushing that argument past all its previously much more mildly expressed forms merely to show that there are clearly SOME reasonable limitations for a blog/forum, the goals of which are stated as fighting fascism and supporting the human dignity of all.

So, I hope this doesn't sound like a rant at all -- just my effort to provide conclusive evidence that SOME limitations are not only reasonable, but NECESSARY in order to achieve the stated goals of this site, which I heartily approve.

[Plutonia]

I'm a woman, Willow, and also the first to use the term "toxic" in reference to this thread, which seems to me to be suffering from a pox of intolerance.

Questioning feminist orthodoxy is not the same thing as attacking a woman or hating women, or being misogynistic. Once one has figured some things out, like gender disparity, I think it's tempting to think that one has arrived and there's no further to go. I think that is the point when ideas become Ideology, when we step out of the stream and try to keep everything just as it was, the moment we did. In the recent past I would have told you that I think that we live within a system that is inherently abusive and that "men", as a monolithic entity, are not to blame for that. Right now, I'm revising my thinking about all this stuff because I've seen something new.

Anyway, Identity Politics don't do it for me anymore. Too divisive and ineffective. Haven't you ever thought about the contradiction in claiming an identity of difference and then demanding to be included in the circle of "just like everybody else?"

Here's Señor Michael Parenti on the subject:

...

“Culture is linked to class power,” Parenti said. “Class is a neglected concept, and when the term ‘class power’ is dismissed as itself ideological, it’s easier to dispose of other inconvenient concepts like ‘class struggle’ and ‘class war.’ A lot of academic research on class exists, but it deals with it simply as a matter of income level. Social scientists and media pundits have perfected the art of looking at class without looking at capitalism. There isn’t any analysis of the most important class, the owning class.”

Parenti cited the heirs of Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart, as the richest and most influential family in the worldwide capitalist owning class. “They invented and developed nothing,” he said. “They’ve made their money by working people to death. Of the 50 richest people in America, five are Waltons. Their total fortune is $78 to $91 billion. Not only that, but not much is said about their class power, about how this enormous wealth is translated into political power. The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and TV won’t talk about class the way I am now. They never talk about social power. They give attention to every class except the owning class, and to every power except corporate power.”

One commonplace Left idea Parenti particularly scorns is the one about how oppression based on race, gender, sexual identity or any other factor can somehow replace class in explaining how an hierarchical society functions. In his speech, he particularly ridiculed the “identity politics” that ruled much of the American Left in the 1970’s and 1980’s, by which people picked up ideological brownie points based on how many oppressed groups they were members of — which led to the joke at the time that the perfect identity-politics Leftist was a blind Native American Lesbian (female, person of color, disabled, Queer). Parenti’s position on identity politics is classically Marxist: racism, sexism and other similar prejudices are important, but mainly as ways the owning class keeps the working class internally divided so groups within the working class fight each other instead of coming together to challenge the owning class.
..

[Project Willow]

I'm a woman,

Really? How could I ever know? If so however, then do me the favor of assuming I know about which I speak.

Questioning feminist orthodoxy is not the same thing as attacking a woman or hating women, or being misogynistic.

I'm finding this statement rather patronizing, and revealing of your attention patterns. Do a search on Morgan's profile and get back to me with a more informed view.

As for the rest, your thinking is your thinking, I'm under no obligation to adhere to it. My experience, my perceptions are my own and worthy of respect in any case. Your approach, so far, is cold and manly.

[82_28]

Plutonia, a woman, which ought have no bearing on anything other than a "misogyny thread" has summed it up. We are an online community of both men and women who are tackling much larger cognitive and philosophical issues than what we here today, find ourselves concerned over. And as men and as women we each come from our own backgrounds from which none of us, regardless of gender have little or any choice over. Whether it be conversation about misogyny or nuclear meltdowns or UFOs or KWHJ, this shit doesn't really come up in my "real life".

I yearn for the conversations we have here throughout the day when I am away. I love all of our personalities through thick and thin and love thinking about them all wrapped into one threadbare global unit of rigorous and intuitive thought (read Jeff's book). I know how I feel, I know what I mean and I assume that the rest of us yokels do too. Often we impute our meanings upon the arguments of others, because we fear speaking of and for ourselves. Words are far less important than the heart that takes the time to use those words in order to communicate, contribute, share. We need to note that this place has heart. We need to also note that no matter what is said, valued members are not prejudiced in any way other than their life experiences and what they bring here.

OK, how about a story? Just came to me.

One time I saved a fucking racist skinhead's life.

I was probably 17.

This indoor skatepark we hung out at was having shows on weekends and I was into Budweiser 40s. For some reason skins hated us skaters and we back. Well, during this show at the skatepark all of a sudden these fucking skinheads marched in zeig-heiling, maced the place and started taking crowbars to us. I was up on the platform of the ramp. Well, imagine 200 skate punks getting pissed at 15 skinheads. Yeah.

Well it became a riot where most of these skinheads were able to get away, as they fully ran away in utter fear for their lives. Well one of the dudes got into the car his buddy drove in and got trapped. 200 people destroyed this car with him in it with all manner of tools, boards and skateboards. Yeah, yeah, but it was me who stepped in before this kid got killed. All of his clothes had been ripped off, flight jacket shredded, his docs were in shreds, he was basically naked, screaming for his life, trembling, just an awful sight there in a completely CRUSHED car. Somehow, me and this dude Joe were able to get everybody to calm down. But it was only two of us out of hundreds who rushed to this racist fuck's aid. That didn't mean we were racist along with them for Christ's sake. It meant the kid was scared to fucking death and needed aid from his own boneheaded mistake of joining the skins in the first place. He got out relatively unscathed.

A friend, Travis, wound up having to go to the hospital in an ambulance for something in his eye he was freaking out about, where some of the skins had gone as well for their injuries. They were all wimpy kids clinging to some juvenile mindset, still. But, much humbled and frightened. They tried talking some shit about the "mud races" etc. I think most, if not all of those dudes renounced their racism within the year.

I don't remember much more. Other than boys will be boys. I don't remember a single female there.

But, here's what I mean. I am a man and have never acted in violence with anyone, never been in a fight, never raped or thought about raping someone, however, some of us motherfuckers stand the fuck up for all and have this in our blood.

Oh wow, cool, 82_28, you're so fucking sweet ass right. No, goddammit. Sometimes you can be crass and also always stand for the right fucking thing and for peace and contentment for all under no uncertain terms. This is where I stand on misogyny. However, I will always call a spade a spade with absolutely no embarrassment.

[82_28]

Oh, the great miracle of the early 90's?

No fucking cops got called! We didn't need 'em in the first place. It sorted it's own self out. But that part's off topic.

[Canadian_watcher]

Right now, I'm feeling as if the comments about "there seems to be a toxicity that has developed" and "this board has become intolerant" lacking in information. Those of you making the claim are being vague, and I'm calling you out:

are you talking about me? It sure would seem as if you are.

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.

In this thread I have often tried to calm the waters and I have also REPEATEDLY explained that yes, there are other problems in this world besides misogyny. I know that somewhere upthread I specifically said that I believe that classism - the class structure itself - is the most important issue humans have to contend with. I and others have assured and reassured men that we see their issues too.. but this is a thread about 'what constitutes misogyny.'

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.

Thanks Kate, Willow, for your recent posts. I fully support you both.