What constitutes Misogyny?

[crikkett]

Are they outside your grocery stores too?

[hava1]

An Arab taxi driver explained the whole issue to me the other day, he said "if GOD is here (pointing to the far right side of the car) then the woman is there (direct opposite to the left)". that kind of catches the entire region's take on women. If one lives here, one has to accomodate, or live in constant agony. So, in the spirit of acceptance, I am excercising indifference and joy, while hearing this crap around me every day, in various versions.

I have to say its a difficult spiritual excecise to remain detached from this reality, maintain inner peace/center and stop "resisting" (or it tends to "persist" more). Working on it, kind of novice stages.

The feminism bred under this environment is usually not appealing, its rich families who even in old times their females had a party. So, they actually reinforce the patriarchy here, as they are viewed as "extensions" of their elite class, and male owners, yet they provoke violent feelings that I suppose are being excercised on the available women (lower class). not terrific.

But as someone told me, if you survive SANE in this region, you climbed up the Karma pit you got thrown in. and you can move on, knowing you really gradiated a stage in spiritual development.

[Stephen Morgan]

She made the point about the (seeming*) unfairness of the legal system wrt males these days, specifically in issues of custody of children which is probably the only aspect of the legal system (along with AVOs and domestic violence accusations and at least here in Australia) that treats women fairly, possibly more fairly than men.

This situation evolved in response to the previous one, where males could get away with domestic violence and it was even encouraged. (Yes it was, there were even ads on tv before I was born that promoted DV against women who didn't do the housework etc.) C_W said she recognised this situation and supported a fair go for men provided the genuine abuse cases (this includes physical violence, in fact thats the majority of the abuse it refers to) were dealt with appropriately.

I somewhat doubt it. Maybe in the allegedly light-hearted way it happens today. The fact is domestic violence against women has never been legal, and has always been grounds for divorce back when divorce needed special grounds. A situation analogous to that prevalent today, where men who are victims of violence can be arrested simply because they are physically larger, for example, has never existed for women. The police were once negligent, but they never formed an actively hostile force to female victims.

Yes I have seen plenty of examples of abuse of the system by women using false accusations against men. But there are also plenty of examples where the opposite happens - the abuse and violence is real and in fact in those cases it seems the victims are less likely to demand their rights to protection. Often it takes a conflict where children are at risk to force change. Obviously even after the most horrible treatment some women still have loyalty to their abusers and are capable of seeing stuff in them that I don't believe exists in those people - gentleness and compassion. And yes I have seen those examples too.

That's not the point I was trying to make, I was using it as a comparison to C_w's statement, to illustrate that her concern for fatherlessness isn't as whole-hearted as it could be.

So if at the moment mens rights seem to be suffering as some sort of backlash against years of oppression tough shit. When change comes its never exact and precise - there is a pendulum effect and that pendulum is now swinging back in favour of men in those legal situations. Hopefully it won't swing very far - just far enough to minimise the vexatious stuff.

Bullshit. You're just looking for an excuse to justify female privelege.

I prefer the situation as it is now, despite the fact I have had good friends go through it and its hurt them and their partners/ex partners and kids, cos ultimately they didn't do anything wrong and the situation vindicated them.

To me thats a smnall price to pay for years of disadvantage that we benefit from.

I'm not feeling a lot of benefit, and I'm guessing your wrongly persecuted friends weren't either.

We're men FFS. We can take this sort of thing, especially given the context.

Much as a longsuffering tolerance might seem admirable, the ultimate virtue is in removing injustice not just saying "thankyou sir, may I have another".

We should just suck it up and stop the whinging cos when it comes down to it we still have plenty of power and advantage. Its stupid to assume otherwise.

It's stupid to make absurd assertions without a basis in fact, but you're doing that.

And its childish to think its actually unfair to us cos really it isn't.

I'll just have to be childish, then. You know, 'cos I think injustice is unfair and that's the sort of juvenile thought civilised people don't have.

* I hadn't really thought about it till this comment but that seeming disadvantage that isn't really one at all is possibly what C2W refers to when she talks about what every female in our culture has to grow up with.

So you aren't, in fact, conceeding any unfair advantage for women in any part of the current court system?

IE its another example of this:

The reason that virtually all women in the United States from every walk of life are stone-guaranteed to be familiar with those concerns and very likely to be sympathetic to them is that girls and women are explicitly taught -- including as a part of their formal education -- to regard ever-mindful awareness of the major ego needs of men as inseparable from the female condition.

Not one of c2w's finest moments, also not connected in any way I can see to what we've been talking about.

[Canadian_watcher]

Nordic, Nordic Nordic, dude, just pick one, single, 2nd wave feminist text and read it. Please dude, if for only your daughter, it won't hurt you, it may very well help her.

Sincerely and with love,
PW

Willow, in all seriousness, I could do that, but it would fall upon deaf ears in her case. She would not be remotely interested. Perhaps when she's in college and isn't just interested in her social life and shopping for clothes ..... And she's got a lot of homework, too, that she HAS to do .....

It's frustrating with her because she has father issues (due to her biological father) and although she has only been on one "sort-of" date and has never had a boyfriend, the issues are manifesting themselves already in some powerful ways as far as her relationships with boys, even as superficial as they are right now.

Baby steps .......

I think Willow meant that you should read the book in order to better parent your daughter, not so that you could teach her directly from it.

I liked Revolution From Within. when I was young. (Willow I'm pretty sure you had a more lofty work in mind, but this book was my primer to feminism and I can say that it changed my life - I was a teen let's not forget)

What I remember of it was that it gave voice to all these fears and frustrations I'd been feeling but didn't understand. I learned that I wasn't crazy for feeling these feelings, and that I wasn't alone. Better still it taught me how these feelings were by and large implanted in women, and had been being implanted in us for a long time - that there was a cold hard history to these feelings of powerlessness, and that I, as a woman, was more whole and powerful than society me credit for. It addressed relationships, self-worth, self-image, biology, medicine, psychology, marketing, and more.

It also helped me to put down that competitiveness with other women as see them as sisters. Maybe others can make a better book suggestion?

[Canadian_watcher]

The fact is domestic violence against women has never been legal, and has always been grounds for divorce back when divorce needed special grounds.

I'm sure you have reams of evidence backing this up, right?

[seemslikeadream]

I just posted this in the Libya thread but it belongs here too






Silvio Berlusconi to 'prove Ruby old enough'

[Joe Hillshoist]

Stevo this is the cop shop where this century or very late last one reports including medical evidence were presented to the coppers regarding the pack rape of two girls (both U15) by a bunch of young men and no acytion was taken. In fact the complaint was laughed out of the station and the two girls in question criticised for being young teenage girls - obviously they were asking for it and deserved everything they got.

I know cos the girls left my place to make the reports and came back here rather upset about the situation.

Its now 2 am and I'm too tired to respond to your comments so you'll have to wait till I get some sleep.

[Stephen Morgan]

The fact is domestic violence against women has never been legal, and has always been grounds for divorce back when divorce needed special grounds.

I'm sure you have reams of evidence backing this up, right?

On the grounds both of extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence and of affirmative statements needing to be proven, as it is impossible to prove a negative, the burden of proof doesn't lie with me.

I could provide American statute law from the seventeenth century forbidding it, or more specifically forbiding the beating of one's wife rather than domestic violence in a more general sense, or common law from the eighteenth century. Given the lack of evidence for its legality in earlier times I'm willing to accept that. I expect you won't be.

[Stephen Morgan]

Stevo this is the cop shop where this century or very late last one reports including medical evidence were presented to the coppers regarding the pack rape of two girls (both U15) by a bunch of young men and no acytion was taken. In fact the complaint was laughed out of the station and the two girls in question criticised for being young teenage girls - obviously they were asking for it and deserved everything they got.

I know cos the girls left my place to make the reports and came back here rather upset about the situation.

Its now 2 am and I'm too tired to respond to your comments so you'll have to wait till I get some sleep.

Did you file a complaint with whatever your local equivalent of the Independent Police Complaints Commission may be?

[crikkett]

The fact is domestic violence against women has never been legal, and has always been grounds for divorce back when divorce needed special grounds. A situation analogous to that prevalent today, where men who are victims of violence can be arrested simply because they are physically larger, for example, has never existed for women. The police were once negligent, but they never formed an actively hostile force to female victims.

Joe (who you were responding to) is in Australia and was speaking about Australian culture. How can you speak with authority about anything but your own neighborhood, in England? Because what you say isn't true for California.

It's stupid to make absurd assertions without a basis in fact, but you're doing that.

*cough*lookinamirror*cough*

[barracuda]

Really? That's news to me. And I'm surprised, if it's true.

It works the same way for men. We're taught to keep our women happy. It's very important to keep them happy, at all costs.

A slightly different viewpoint: men are taught from birth to keep other men happy, or face the wrath of the system they control and that controls them. If making women happy happens to happen, it is an after-thoughtical by-product, if that. If your personal non-loser status and self-image is balanced on the point of making money and making your career fly, then it's generally not a woman you need to please in order to maintain. And by "generally not", I mean never.

Trouble is, most of the time you can't make another person happy. It's up to them.

Yeah, but you know - women, who can please 'em? They're never happy.

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.

Another victim of unhappy women bites the dust, destroyed, mere remnants of his former self cluttering up the world. Cue swelling music. Fade to black.

These guys are often the ones who join men's movements. I've known a good many of them. They urged me to join, but I'm not into the group thing. I distrust them.

And rightly so. You might become infected with that "changing your true self to make women happy" thing. But I think we've already determined that you generally don't trust men anyway. Misandrist.

My point being: it's a two-way street.

The reason that virtually all women in the United States from every walk of life are stone-guaranteed to be familiar with those concerns and very likely to be sympathetic to them is that girls and women are explicitly taught -- including as a part of their formal education -- to regard ever-mindful awareness of the major ego needs of men as inseparable from the female condition.

Not one of c2w's finest moments, also not connected in any way I can see to what we've been talking about.

You seem constitutionally incapable of looking her reality in the face, either.

What constitutes misogyny? Simply review this thread for the answer.
Spoiler:Blindness is part of the answer.

[Stephen Morgan]

It's stupid to make absurd assertions without a basis in fact, but you're doing that.

*cough*lookinamirror*cough*

I've provided facts. If you'd like evidence for any of them just say. Always happy to oblige.

[JackRiddler]

.

Misogyny is anti-humanism.

It is a hatred of humanity, of self, that expresses itself particularly through the hatred of women.

The first part of the following does not show pornography (though it legally qualifies). It is misogyny.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbLKWgPBMH8

.

[Canadian_watcher]

.

Misogyny is anti-humanism.

It is a hatred of humanity, of self, that expresses itself particularly through the hatred of women.

yes, I agree with that. And the first part of the video I think does illustrate it, and demonstrates nicely that it is not just a man's habit. Also, it's painful to watch some women, particularly young ones, participate in it: they may or may not understand that they are the butt of the joke, but they do understand that they get temporary rewards for playing the part. If they were exposed to more options for reward in the first place, I don't think they'd choose to exploit themselves but the society we bring girls up in tells them over and over that pleasing men (in whatever fashion) is the quickest route.

I've just read an opinion piece by a woman who works in the entertainment industry in the UK. She gives a lot of good examples of what she calls 'casual sexism' and mostly sums it up here:

For men and women alike, casual misogyny is the climate and context of all their interactions. It is unconcealed and automatic. It affects the way women are received, portrayed and considered as colleagues, friends, workers, mothers, artists, thinkers, public figures and victims of male violence and discrimination. Apart from outright slander, jibes, names and insults there is: talking down a woman's work, interrupting her, teasing her, mocking her, talking over her, patronising her, sighing or rolling one's eyes when she talks, invading her personal space.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ ... m-misogyny

[Stephen Morgan]

Really? That's news to me. And I'm surprised, if it's true.

It works the same way for men. We're taught to keep our women happy. It's very important to keep them happy, at all costs.

A slightly different viewpoint: men are taught from birth to keep other men happy, or face the wrath of the system they control and that controls them. If making women happy happens to happen, it is an after-thoughtical by-product, if that. If your personal non-loser status and self-image is balanced on the point of making money and making your career fly, then it's generally not a woman you need to please in order to maintain. And by "generally not", I mean never.

Firstly you assume the professional sphere to be the only one of importance, as if no psychological health or happiness lay in inter-personal and social relations.

Secondly, you assert that no man has ever had a female boss. Fuck it, I've got a female boss.

The reason that virtually all women in the United States from every walk of life are stone-guaranteed to be familiar with those concerns and very likely to be sympathetic to them is that girls and women are explicitly taught -- including as a part of their formal education -- to regard ever-mindful awareness of the major ego needs of men as inseparable from the female condition.

Not one of c2w's finest moments, also not connected in any way I can see to what we've been talking about.

You seem constutionally incapable of looking her reality in the face, either.

What constitutes misogyny? Simply review this thread for the answer.
Spoiler:Blindness is part of the answer.

Perhaps you could be less oblique.

Also, I wanted to provide a cite for the women-weren't-fodder-for-legal-beatings stuff, having been poked by cricket and c_w.

First: Wife beating has never been legal in the U.S. The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited it in 1655, religious groups campaigned against it, and vigilantes occasionally horsewhipped men accused of it. Most states had explicitly outlawed it by 1870.

That one's a website. If no-one mind a book, which I believe may be on Google books, Blackstone's infamous commentaries on the Laws of England has this to say:

But though our law in general considers man and wife as one person, yet there are some instances in which she is separately considered; as inferior to him, and acting by his compulsion. And therefore any deeds executed, and acts done, by her, during her coverture, are void; except it be a fine, or the like manner of record, in which case she must be solely and secretly examined, to learn if her act be voluntary. She cannot by will devise lands to her husband, unless under special circumstances; for at the time of making it she is supposed to be under his coercion. And in some felonies, and other inferior crimes, committed by her through constraint of her husband, the law excuses her: but this extends not to treason or murder.

The husband also, by the old law, might give his wife moderate correction. For, as he is to answer for her misbehaviour, the law thought it reasonable to intrust him with this power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children; for whom the master or parent is also liable in some cases to answer. But this power of correction was confined within reasonable bounds, and the husband was prohibited from using any violence to his wife,

The tl;dr version is this: married women were not considered under the jurisdiction of the law because it was assumed that all their actions were under coercion by their husbands, therefore if they committed crimes, other than minor crimes payable by a fine and murder or treason, the husband was punished for it. Murder and treason the wife would be punished for, as she would have ot pay a fine, as married property wasn't intermingled. On these grounds the man was given jurisdiction to "chastise" his wife, but specifically forbidden from "using any violence". Presumably the chastisement was therefore of limited use. The cite then goes onto some latin I can't read before saying that the above applied until the "politer" reign of Charlie 2, late seventeenth century, when all forms of jurisdiction which a man had borne over his wife were abolished, although Blackstone points out that poor people often prefer the old law. Unmentioned is that at about that time the law was extended to apply directly to women, rather than through their husbands.

So what I've done here is present to very most anti-female law I could find in England, DV-wise, and it still specifically forbids the use of violence against one's wife. If c_w would like to present evidence of a law in England, or for that matter any English speaking nation, which renders wife-beating legal, I would be interested to see it. The medieval legal position of women is quite fascinating.