rigorousintuition.ca

crikkett wrote:

82_28 wrote:Here's a starter for starting a fake fight in a restaurant with all kinds of people enjoying their expensive wines and food and shit.

"So, I went into the office today and Watson told me you had sex with him last week."

And then go from there. The best way to enjoy a night out with your sweetie evar! I suggest everybody try it.

"LOL"

Young people pull stunts like that. It's daring, since youngsters don't always anticipate how someone will act when deliberately provoked.

And another thing: I'm glad you're friends with your lady.

Yeah, but see, you pull it off in the vernacular of the class you are around. That's key. When I was a kid we used to drive by business people coming out of restaurants on lunch and yell out the window "What's the bottom line on the Apex accounts, Jim?"

You can do this kind of thing at any age and it's best that you keep it up, otherwise you'll lose your ability to have fun like, dare I say, most adults out there. You become grizzled, angry and bitter. I'm 36 now, so not exactly young or old.

Me and some friends as of now are putting together a trip to sit in the audience of NW Newday in a couple of weeks. I'll let you all know how that goes!

Nordic wrote:I had to tell my stepdaughter some time ago that the worst thing she could ever call a man was a "loser". For women, it seems the worst thing you can do is criticize her weight or her appearance.

Wouldn't bother me. Being something other than a loser is an extremely morally dubious choice.

compared2what? wrote:PLEASE NOTE: The adversity specifically faced by girls and women at every stage of life, in multiple spheres, in every culture on earth, for all recorded history is NOT mutually exclusive of the adversity specifically faced by boys and men at every stage of life, in multiple spheres, in every culture on earth, for all recorded history.

Assuming you are right, for the sake of argument, would misogynist be an appropriate word for such a culture? If, after all, the same conditions or similar are encountered by men it should also be considered misandrist. Describing it as hating women, when it also hates people who are not women, is therefore misleading. Misanthropic may be a better term, which you could use without implying the hurdles faced by men to be unworthy of mention.

82_28 wrote:"So, I went into the office today and Watson told me you had sex with him last week."

You know Watson? Is he as square as he looks on TV?

compared2what? wrote:PLEASE NOTE: The adversity specifically faced by girls and women at every stage of life, in multiple spheres, in every culture on earth, for all recorded history is NOT mutually exclusive of the adversity specifically faced by boys and men at every stage of life, in multiple spheres, in every culture on earth, for all recorded history.

Thanks for listening!

Well, that would be sexism, by your definition (and mine), I do believe. Whereas misogyny is the frequent visceral accompaniment that consciously and emotionally devalues or degrades or is disgusted or fearful or hateful of female, woman, girl and usually also the associated (ascribed) values or qualities of the gender (girl things, the colors, even). Right? It's akin to the difference between racism, the system, about which one can be oblivious even as one lives and breathes it, and felt racist conviction.

.

Canadian_watcher wrote:BUT, for the conversation to move forward we have to recognize that some generalities are going to be made, some stereotypes are going to be mentioned, and imprecise language will be used in the pursuit of getting at the bigger picture. If we keep stopping every time someone makes such a faux pas to dissect how they in general tend to interfere with debates of all kinds then we're just going to go in circles. I would like to see us acknowledge/challenge any specific examples (if we must point them out in the first place) and then move forward.

You state your opinion as if it were fact. That you and others may have a predilection for seeing the bigger picture, as you say, does not necessarily make it a virtue.

Indeed, misogyny is just one such attempt to see the bigger picture.

charlie meadows wrote:You state your opinion as if it were fact. That you and others may have a predilection for seeing the bigger picture, as you say, does not necessarily make it a virtue.

Indeed, misogyny is just one such attempt to see the bigger picture.

in life, maybe. but on this particular thread, misogyny *is* the big picture.

Canadian_watcher wrote:

charlie meadows wrote:You state your opinion as if it were fact. That you and others may have a predilection for seeing the bigger picture, as you say, does not necessarily make it a virtue.

Indeed, misogyny is just one such attempt to see the bigger picture.

in life, maybe. but on this particular thread, misogyny *is* the big picture.

[Stands at the keyboard, speechless and incredulous, mouth open...]

Stephen Morgan wrote:

compared2what? wrote:PLEASE NOTE: The adversity specifically faced by girls and women at every stage of life, in multiple spheres, in every culture on earth, for all recorded history is NOT mutually exclusive of the adversity specifically faced by boys and men at every stage of life, in multiple spheres, in every culture on earth, for all recorded history.

Assuming you are right, for the sake of argument, would misogynist be an appropriate word for such a culture? If, after all, the same conditions or similar are encountered by men it should also be considered misandrist. Describing it as hating women, when it also hates people who are not women, is therefore misleading. Misanthropic may be a better term, which you could use without implying the hurdles faced by men to be unworthy of mention.

IIRC, we covered that terrain at some point in Did Women Cause the Recession?

And if not there, then elsewhere, I'm all but positive of it. But I'll be damned if I can recall where, exactly. So if that thread comes up empty, let me know and I'll try to jog my memory.

Although on the off-chance that it rings any bells for you, any and all reminders would be both welcome and appreciated, needless to say.

This is a crosspost with the witch thread:

Here's some directed advertising, meme association from 2/21/1900 in the Seattle Times archives:

Stephen Morgan wrote:

compared2what? wrote:PLEASE NOTE: The adversity specifically faced by girls and women at every stage of life, in multiple spheres, in every culture on earth, for all recorded history is NOT mutually exclusive of the adversity specifically faced by boys and men at every stage of life, in multiple spheres, in every culture on earth, for all recorded history.

Assuming you are right, for the sake of argument, would misogynist be an appropriate word for such a culture? If, after all, the same conditions or similar are encountered by men it should also be considered misandrist. Describing it as hating women, when it also hates people who are not women, is therefore misleading. Misanthropic may be a better term, which you could use without implying the hurdles faced by men to be unworthy of mention.

The culture we live in is brutally nihlistic and necrophilial, and evidences a blind, fearful hatred of the planet itself, of the animals upon it, of the plants, the seas, the birds and the air. So yes, in some ways, misogyny is just another subset of our sheer existential disgust with everything there is. At least as far as I can tell, judging from events such as the recent bombing of the moon.

Nonetheless, it is my observation that the necrophilial overture perpetrates itself foremost upon women rather than men in the world as we know it today, and is in fact a feature of the male-driven technological society which is, in fact, administrated by men, for men, primarily, e.g., the world is not, at the moment, laboring under or uprising against any significant number of bloodthirsty, despicable women dictators.

I don't hate men, Stephen. I love them dearly, all of them, and pray for them to act nice.

brainpanhandler wrote:

barracuda wrote:

compared2what? wrote:Because no matter how carefully, lovingly, impartially, or non-critically you do it, they just go into a complete state of defensive meltdown immediately. They are, in fact, that thin-skinned.

BULLSHIT!!!

HA! But seriously, how about men just grow the fuck up? That might not be a constructive approach, but short of a wholesale reevaluation of all values that's what I got.

c2w wrote:In any event. It always goes that way. Every single time. And it really is heartbreaking, first and foremost. As well as frustrating, both on one's own behalf and as a matter of love and consideration for the man and/or men, assuming a relationship in which that's present.

I think it is almost a certainty that your experience of men and their response to you has some elements to it that are not generally speaking common. You're intimidating. No matter how hard you try not to be, you are. Merely by virtue of your intelligence you are going to illicit feelings of insecurity and all that entails. It's painful to watch you tippy toe around and dumb down in order to find a way to get past the defensiveness and build a bridge of communication.

I fucking resent it, on your behalf.

Well, you know. Men who love me tend to be kind of self-selectingly not intimidated or put off by me. So it's not really all that much of a problem, in practice.

Um....Blushing thanks for the praise and empathy that I feel reflexively and fearfully compelled to protest as unmerited? Or, barring that, minimize, obscure and expeditiously dispense with as rapidly as it's possible to do without actually being rudely dismissive of you?

Paradoxical as the case may be, they're just what I've always wanted. Now, OMG, please get them away from me! Help!

Searcher08 wrote:

Joe Hillshoist wrote:

Searcher08 wrote:The Asian women said the racism was present only in her own mind.

Bullshit, it was present in the arsehole's treatment of her.

Lots of arseholes are ... racist arseholes. If some arsehole calls me a dirty boong cos they are an arsehole it doesn't mean the racism exists only in my mind. Despite the fact that they are probably also a bullyingly violent rapist jerk about to lose some teeth, and the sort of arsehole who treats people like shit they are also racist. They make those comments because they want to inflict some sort of pain/power trip on other people, and generate a particular emotional response. Same with the parking attendant.

Reading back on what I wrote, I left out some essential stuff. Sorry if it fucked you off, Joe.
First, the carpark attendent herself was female.
Second, the abuse that the parking attendant gave out wasnt racist - she didnt call her a 'Paki' or anything overt- and the Asian lady she said the parking attendent had not recognised her AND was treating her identically to how she treated her before, and to the other people.

Yeah I did assume that situation was something it wasn't.

My perception is that racism and arseholiness and misogyny probably intersect like a Venn diagram.

Yeah totally.

No worries anyway.

barracuda wrote:The culture we live in is brutally nihlistic and necrophilial, and evidences a blind, fearful hatred of the planet itself, of the animals upon it, of the plants, the seas, the birds and the air. So yes, in some ways, misogyny is just another subset of our sheer existential disgust with everything there is. At least as far as I can tell, judging from events such as the recent bombing of the moon.

What, pray, are the benefits of blowing up the moon?
-- Professor Nebulous

Nonetheless, it is my observation that the necrophilial overture perpetrates itself foremost upon women rather than men in the world as we know it today, and is in fact a feature of the male-driven technological society which is, in fact, administrated by men, for men, primarily, e.g., the world is not, at the moment, laboring under or uprising against any significant number of bloodthirsty, despicable women dictators.

If I may turn that one around upon you, as mankind's creations must inevitably turn upon their creators, the evils of modern society exert their most restrictive and damaging efforts against men, and is a feature of the consumer society driven mostly, indeed disproportionately, by female spending, and is the ultimate responsibility of the voters, of whom the majority are female and of whom the female contingent are disproportionately likely to vote.

I don't hate men, Stephen. I love them dearly, all of them, and pray for them to act nice.

Niceness starts with an unshakeable confidence in ones own benevolence, not the assumption that one's sex renders one incapable of virtue. For that matter any form of biological determinism is inherently at odds with a faith in the ability of mankind to control his own mind by an act of will, whether for all that's nice or all that's not.

Mind you, if the men of Egypt had acted nice they would still have a blood-thirsty dictator in charge, so not too nice and not too soon.

Stephen Morgan wrote:Mind you, if the men of Egypt had acted nice they would still have a blood-thirsty dictator in charge, so not too nice and not too soon.

the people of Egypt.

charlie meadows wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote:

charlie meadows wrote:You state your opinion as if it were fact. That you and others may have a predilection for seeing the bigger picture, as you say, does not necessarily make it a virtue.

Indeed, misogyny is just one such attempt to see the bigger picture.

in life, maybe. but on this particular thread, misogyny *is* the big picture.

[Stands at the keyboard, speechless and incredulous, mouth open...]

The thread title is "What Constitutes Misogyny." I don't know if you thought I meant something other than that, but I didn't, so you can unfreeze yourself now.