What constitutes Misogyny?

[Stephen Morgan]

If women are going to compete in activities designed by men for the participation of men, they will always be at a severe disadvantage, obviously.

Would you care to state some physically competitive pass times which may be devised in which men and women could compete on equal footing?

[Canadian_watcher]

Broomball.

[Stephen Morgan]

The local chip shop doesn't open again until after May Day. Where's the moral lesson in that?

If you're tending to equate a discussion of civil rights for women with your need for a timely fried potato, I can understand why you might be perceived as confused here.

I don't think being granted sole rights to define and recognise misogyny quite rises to the level of a civil right.

But I guess the moral lesson there might be something on the order of, "good things come to he who waits", or "longing makes the heart grow fonder", or some such blather. I don't know. I'm not an expert on the morality of salty British tasties. Perhaps you ought consult your handy bible for guidance on this one.

Could do, could do. Or I could go to the next nearest chippy instead. There's about a dozen chippys in town, I'm sure there must be one open. Until Friday at least, fucking Royal Wedding Holiday. Had to be on Friday, the best day for eating chips.

It's not the agreement itself, more the manner in which it is expressed. You often come across as someone striding the savannah, cutting down rival alpha males.

Not me. I crawl through the slime and the muck, hunting trolls.

Good. Slime and muck are the friends of the ascetic.

[Stephen Morgan]

Broomball.

I read somewhere about women who can fire ping pong balls out of their vaginas. Perhaps some sort of target shooting. Wouldn't be much chance of men winning at that one.

[Canadian_watcher]

Broomball.

I read somewhere about women who can fire ping pong balls out of their vaginas. Perhaps some sort of target shooting. Wouldn't be much chance of men winning at that one.

Morgan please...
if men could aim we wouldn't need toilet seats.

[brekin]

C_W wrote:

brekin wrote:
Hardly. What, ignored both of them? She didn't want to hear what I had to say. And dug in because she thought any
consideration to the Furnace Man denied her what she felt in the encounter.

wrong - I read what you had to say and I responded. Here's what I said:

Quote:
I don't buy it. I've been an employee and a small business owner and I have almost never been late. If I want a piss or a cup of coffee, or if I know it takes me ten minutes to get my truck ready, I budget time accordingly. This is not rocket science.
It is even possible to get up in time to make sure that one's children are feeling well and leave time to deal with it if they are not! (amazing, I know, but it's true!!)
With all that said, however -
THE POINT IS NOT that he was late. The point is how he reacted to the simple question; "Can you tell me why you were late?"
I didn't snark it at him. I was smiling. I was friendly. I was ready to accept any answer besides: "Because I couldn't give a shit about this job."
Think about it, if you showed up at work and your boss said, "Hey Bill, can you tell me why you were late today?" would you actually laugh in his face and say, "Seriously?"
would you?
More than that, if you were trying to grow your own business, would you think it prudent to laugh at your customers' concerns?
I mean really. This is basic human survival skills 101
You countered, but didn't bother to answer my last question, even. My next response to you was: "hey if you want to hire slackers for your home maintenance, go right ahead" .
THAT WAS on page 62.

Hello, the matter wasn't whether he was punctual or socially sensitive but whether he was a "sexist prick".
Whether he is going to grow his business or not by laughing at his customers is too boring for words as a topic.
I've already replied to you in my long diatribes about the above.
But after we butted heads and I left you decided to use me as a case study on page 64:

C_W wrote:

Sometimes it is simply the unwillingness to validate a woman's experience because "she must be hysterical... she must be too close to the subject to think rationally about it" We saw an example of this when brekin warned me 'not to go there' with the story of my sexual assault. Why should I not go there? It is my experience. He might say he was eager to help me, protect me. I don't think so. He wasn't so eager to stand up for me against the disrespect of the Furnace Guy. What he was really saying in relation to the sexual assault story was: "This isn't fair. You can't hand us an example that we can't blame you for in some way! You can't' make yourself vulnerable in front of us because then we'll look like bad guys if we attack you!" He failed to see that this whole thread makes us vulnerable, and attacking at any point in the discussion is the same type of insult.

I already replied to that at length, but that is why I came back. You obviously don't want someone taking what you do and
aligning it with a flaw of viewing a whole gender do you? Should I just lay back and be allowed to be some type of supposed exhibit
for ignorance when my own remarks are omitted and others created. Shortly after Project Willow also decided that defending myself and
and giving my opinion was continuing the long history of not letting women name their own experience. Gosh, yeah why can't I just let it go?

C_W wrote

You really ought to drop this whole idea that you've been mistreated because you disagreed. You've been getting angrier and angrier responses because you will not STOP repeating yourself, like some kind of broken parrot robot. You're digging in deeper. What is it that would make you able to just let this go? Please tell me.

Why can't I let it go? Maybe it's this disgusting ingrained sense of fairness I carry inside of me.
No one has convinced me my behavior has been misogynistic. If they continue to say so without convincing me then I'm sticking around.
If you don't want to see me, don't call my name.

[WakeUpAndLive]

Why can't I let it go? Maybe it's this disgusting ingrained sense of fairness I carry inside of me.
No one has convinced me my behavior has been misogynistic. If they continue to say so without convincing me then I'm sticking around.

Touche.

[Canadian_watcher]

I have finally done what I should have done 20 pages ago.

[WakeUpAndLive]

if men could aim we wouldn't need toilet seats.

If women could just clean the seat I wouldn't need to lift/lower

[OP ED]

It's not the agreement itself, more the manner in which it is expressed. You often come across as someone striding the savannah, cutting down rival alpha males.

Not me. I crawl through the slime and the muck, hunting trolls.

I actually just thought it was because you were an asshole.

[not that threads like this ever fail to present one with easy targets]

[Project Willow]

Maybe it's this disgusting ingrained sense of fairness I carry inside of me.
No one has convinced me my behavior has been misogynistic.

My, that's a lovely oxymoron you're sporting there!
Oh, brekin, the great and powerful giver of all wisdom, because he has the mighty internal engine of fairness, he can never be wrong!

If they continue to say so without convincing me then I'm sticking around.
If you don't want to see me, don't call my name.

Hey, a**hole! A*******hole!

Just checking.

You've seen fit to draw parallels between my having an opinion, at all, and being a slave owner or a genocidal imperialist, a little swearing is minor in comparison.

What is it that would make you able to just let this go? Please tell me.

My guess is the complete and utter surrender of all active female voices in the thread, accompanied by halting and subservient 'Yes dear's' in answer to the throbbing dominance of his opinion, just like the more proper women he has known before.

I went over the top there to make a point. The language of dominance is rife in all of the heated exchanges, who wins, who loses, who ends with a balance of power over, these are all traditionally male, result-priority concerns. Dominance is our common language/framework, known to and spoken by both men and women. Process-priority concerns such as listening, mirroring, empathy, and support, these are traditionally female and so are relegated to that valueless territory of "other". While the point about language has been made already but it bears repeating. Sadly, the devaluing of process-priority language has apparently kept it completely out of the awareness of some young men, and so we have this conflict here, which ironically is then blamed on women.

[Stephen Morgan]

if men could aim we wouldn't need toilet seats.

If women could just clean the seat I wouldn't need to lift/lower

If we could all lower both the seat and the lid, we could all be equally inconvenienced when in urgent need of relief. And women's urinals are due for a comeback, too.

[wintler2]

The local chip shop doesn't open again until after May Day. Where's the moral lesson in that?

If you're tending to equate a discussion of civil rights for women with your need for a timely fried potato, I can understand why you might be perceived as confused here.

If Stephen ran these pseudo working class non sequitors only occasionally, then i might think he was just confused. But he does it all the time, and i reckon he's got a billy bragg song lyric sampler.

[Stephen Morgan]

The local chip shop doesn't open again until after May Day. Where's the moral lesson in that?

If you're tending to equate a discussion of civil rights for women with your need for a timely fried potato, I can understand why you might be perceived as confused here.

If Stephen ran these pseudo working class non sequitors only occasionally, then i might think he was just confused. But he does it all the time, and i reckon he's got a billy bragg song lyric sampler.

[brekin]

brekin wrote:
Maybe it's this disgusting ingrained sense of fairness I carry inside of me.
No one has convinced me my behavior has been misogynistic.

:rofl:

Project Willow wrote:
My, that's a lovely oxymoron you're sporting there!
Oh, brekin, the great and powerful giver of all wisdom, because he has the mighty internal engine of fairness, he can never be wrong!

I never said I was infallible and could never go wrong. I just don't think my behavior has been misogynistic.
And you still have failed to bring anything credible up to have me believe that. That is why you have to generalize wildly and
bring in straw limbaughs.

brekin wrote:
If they continue to say so without convincing me then I'm sticking around.
If you don't want to see me, don't call my name.

Project Willow wrote:
Hey, a**hole! A*******hole!

Just checking.

You've seen fit to draw parallels between my having an opinion, at all, and being a slave owner or a genocidal imperialist, a little swearing is minor in comparison.

Project Willow you continue to show your true colors again and again. Honestly do you think if any of the males
in this thread took to a "little swearing" at any of the women they would be given a free pass like you? No, that would be misogynistic. While
you hide behind a shield of supposed progressiveness when at the end of the day you are just back reinforcing aggressive sex based dominance patterns "why don't you go and grow a pair" and demeaning people with vulgar pejoratives.

And uh, its not you having an opinion that bothers me. It's your specific opinion that you are final judge and jury of who and what is misogynistic in this thread. Which to even question is "inherently disrespectful".

Canadian_watcher (asking brekin) wrote:
What is it that would make you able to just let this go? Please tell me.

Project Willow wrote:

My guess is the complete and utter surrender of all active female voices in the thread, accompanied by halting and subservient 'Yes dear's' in answer to the throbbing dominance of his opinion, just like the more proper women he has known before.

Project Willow don't guess to my motives. You can't seem to separate me from some created other that I'm not and am not an advocate for.

Project Willow wrote:

I went over the top there to make a point.

The problem is you are willing to go over people also to make your point to.

The language of dominance is rife in all of the heated exchanges, who wins, who loses, who ends with a balance of power over, these are all traditionally male, result-priority concerns. Dominance is our common language/framework, known to and spoken by both men and women. Process-priority concerns such as listening, mirroring, empathy, and support, these are traditionally female and so are relegated to that valueless territory of "other". While the point about language has been made already but it bears repeating. Sadly, the devaluing of process-priority language has apparently kept it completely out of the awareness of some young men, and so we have this conflict here, which ironically is then blamed on women.

This is hilarious. Insanely so. Are you telling me now that you would typify your communication style in this thread as process orientated and concerned with
listening, mirroring, empathy, and support????

Are you for real??!??

How can you be process orientated when you already know what is the one approved end? And don't accept divergent opinions and immediately label them?
You have not listened, you have not empathized, or supported anyone who has not reconfirmed what you have already believed.
And you have taken many viewpoints that stray the tiniest bit from yours and have supposed and labeled them as misogynistic.

It is easy to empathize with those who you already agree with. It takes courage to empathize with those you don't.
Something I tried to do with the Furnace man, and was dinged for. Then I tried with C_W at one point, and was also dinged for.