rigorousintuition.ca

charlie meadows wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote:For the love of all that is beautiful open your eyes and see it.

what are you saying? spell it out. I'm a dummy.

Canadian_watcher wrote:

charlie meadows wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote:For the love of all that is beautiful open your eyes and see it.

what are you saying? spell it out. I'm a dummy.

Excuse me?

charlie meadows wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote:

charlie meadows wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote:For the love of all that is beautiful open your eyes and see it.

what are you saying? spell it out. I'm a dummy.

Excuse me?

can't you read?

I didn't say anything. I was quoting you.

Best line in the thread. I feel like making it my sig.

It's definitely worth repeating: "For the love of all that is beautiful open your eyes and see it."

Thank you.

thank you, that's awesome. I think you should. And I think you should attribute it to me making sure to indicate that I'm speaking of misogyny.

Canadian_watcher wrote:thank you, that's awesome. I think you should. And I think you should attribute it to me making sure to indicate that I'm speaking of misogyny.

Good?

Don't quit now. See all that you have done toward coming "to better mutual understandings"?

Canadian_watcher wrote:

brainpanhandler wrote:

cw wrote:In this thread I have often tried to calm the waters

Maybe more than you should have.

Many of you are behaving like children.

Yes. That's plain. I could be entirely wrong, but I am guessing you might not recognize the complete significance of that.

Just say what's on your mind, please. Enough of this cryptic bullshit. Say it.

I guess I was suggesting overly obliquely that for many of us our parents were our first role models of male and female and how they relate. As such parenting and the psychodynamics of the godlike figures of mom and dad loom large for many of us wrt to gender issues. Regression is a common defensive tactic. Smoothing things over is a parenting sort of behavior. Attention seeking through acting out is childlike behavior. I guess I don't think it's coincidental that these behaviors show up here on this thread, although one doesn't have to look far in threads not even remotely related to gender issues to find the same roles adopted and attititudes expressed.

.

charlie meadows wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote:thank you, that's awesome. I think you should. And I think you should attribute it to me making sure to indicate that I'm speaking of misogyny.

Good?

Don't quit now. See all that you have done toward coming "to better mutual understandings"?

oh yes sir. I see it. thank you so much for the lesson, sir. I really needed that. Oh, daddy.

Canadian_watcher wrote:

norton ash wrote: 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 would assume that talking about incest is also difficult. So let's avoid it altogether. Let's advise victims of incestuous abuse to just keep it quiet, shut up and take it, "Don't Offend Daddy"

Really more heat than light there, C_W, and Daddy's a strawman in this case.

Because when someone like Morgan shows up with his reasons why he's anti-feminist-progress, he has real value in how he can be refuted. He's actually giving reasons WHY some people might be misogynistic, their justifications and rationalizations. This goes straight to what constitutes and sustains misogyny, and is one of the best places to sound off and fight back.

As would someone who showed up with reasons as to why he/she's an anti-semite, but that would surely be bannable. So my question as to 'why we do it' was rhetorical.

Morgan's never going to convert me to anything. And reducing many various voices who might see the value of inviting the devil into our parlour for an argument to one 'Team Morgan' of cold, manly sexist assholes... well, it's just absurd.

And Plutonia gets strafed for raising disillusionment with the feminist movement as a factor in promulgating and reshaping the greater misogyny in society? Sounds legit to me, and I don't know why those threads in the weave must be denied as counterproductive and off-topic.

I feel the anger, appreciate the heat. I just don't see the value in slamming doors on real adversaries, while painting 'enemy' on some of us who aren't hostile. Misguided, skewed-by-society, resentful, baffled, maybe, but not hostile.

brainpanhandler wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote:

brainpanhandler wrote:

cw wrote:In this thread I have often tried to calm the waters

Maybe more than you should have.

Many of you are behaving like children.

Yes. That's plain. I could be entirely wrong, but I am guessing you might not recognize the complete significance of that.

Just say what's on your mind, please. Enough of this cryptic bullshit. Say it.

I guess I was suggesting overly obliquely that for many of us our parents were our first role models of male and female and how they relate. As such parenting and the psychodynamics of the godlike figures of mom and dad loom large for many of us wrt to gender issues. Regression is a common defensive tactic. Smoothing things over is a parenting sort of behavior. Attention seeking through acting out is childlike behavior. I guess I don't think it's coincidental that these behaviors show up here on this thread, although one doesn't have to look far in threads not even remotely related to gender issues to find the same roles adopted and attititudes expressed.

.

you guess you were suggesting very obliquely?

you see why it's difficult to have a proper conversation when people are guessing they may be obliquely suggesting things instead of saying them?

Canadian_watcher wrote:

charlie meadows wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote:thank you, that's awesome. I think you should. And I think you should attribute it to me making sure to indicate that I'm speaking of misogyny.

Good?

Don't quit now. See all that you have done toward coming "to better mutual understandings"?

oh yes sir. I see it. thank you so much for the lesson, sir. I really needed that. Oh, daddy.

Since you don't say things overly obliquely, but come right out and speak your mind, I will take what you are saying at face value: You're welcome.

But please I am not a sir.

And again, now is not the time to give way to frustration. After all, Rome was not razed in a day. There is too much at stake.

norton ash wrote: Because when someone like Morgan shows up with his reasons why he's anti-feminist-progress, he has real value in how he can be refuted.

this is my argument, believe it or not, behind "closed doors." I do think that he has gone too far on some occasions and know that with the new guidelines in place he would certainly fall afoul of them. Still, it is his decision to remove himself from that risk. Fine with me, he's a grown man, he knows his limits, and if he can't be civil or stop denying history (and his insistence that marital rape isn't really 'violent' and so couldn't be seen as domestic assault is neither civil nor based in reality) then he has to decide what is best for him.

norton ash wrote:As would someone who showed up with reasons as to why he/she's an anti-semite, but that would surely be bannable. So my question as to 'why we do it' was rhetorical.

The question was NOT rhetorical, for the answer isn't obvious. The fact that you think it is shows that you don't see where the OP is coming from, or that you literally believe that it is too fraught with actual misogyny itself to be able to be properly debated.

Further addressing your statement, I'd like to press you on why anti-feminists can so readily be equated with anti-semites? Or can they? What are you saying wrt people who might defend why they are anti-semitic that transfers to people who might defend why they are anti-feminist?

norton ash wrote:Morgan's never going to convert me to anything. And reducing many various voices who might see the value of inviting the devil into our parlour for an argument to one 'Team Morgan' of cold, manly sexist assholes... well, it's just absurd.

yes, it is. Who said that? Are you putting words into my mouth, sir?

norton ash wrote:And Plutonia gets strafed for raising disillusionment with the feminist movement as a factor in promulgating and reshaping the greater misogyny in society?

I'm sorry, I thought I was rebutting the arguments. Do you see it as strafing? Why? Lots of other posters respond to each other in this manner. Barracuda does it all the time. Would you call what he does 'strafing' or not?

charlie meadows wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote:

charlie meadows wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote:thank you, that's awesome. I think you should. And I think you should attribute it to me making sure to indicate that I'm speaking of misogyny.

Good?

Don't quit now. See all that you have done toward coming "to better mutual understandings"?

oh yes sir. I see it. thank you so much for the lesson, sir. I really needed that. Oh, daddy.

Since you don't say things overly obliquely, but come right out and speak your mind, I will take what you are saying at face value: You're welcome.

But please I am not a sir.

And again, now is not the time to give way to frustration. After all, Rome was not razed in a day. There is too much at stake.

sorry ma'am, but now is the time. In my 'real life' I will continue to uphold the values that I know and understand. I will continue learning and trying to converse with people in order to reach better mutual understandings. But on this board, where people often do not speak plainly - or where they choose to ignore the meat of discussion in favour or pointing out that the speaker had a hair out of place - I have just had it with playing coddling and coaxing.

Canadian_watcher wrote:

charlie meadows wrote:And again, now is not the time to give way to frustration. After all, Rome was not razed in a day. There is too much at stake.

sorry ma'am, but now is the time. In my 'real life' I will continue to uphold the values that I know and understand. I will continue learning and trying to converse with people in order to reach better mutual understandings. But on this board, where people often do not speak plainly - or where they choose to ignore the meat of discussion in favour or pointing out that the speaker had a hair out of place - I have just had it with playing coddling and coaxing.

Frustration is by definition not adaptive and not productive. I meant it in this sense. In this sense, then, it is never the time for frustration.

You have a fine opportunity here to effect change. But it will take time. The greater the challenge, the greater the reward.

charlie meadows wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote:

charlie meadows wrote:And again, now is not the time to give way to frustration. After all, Rome was not razed in a day. There is too much at stake.

sorry ma'am, but now is the time. In my 'real life' I will continue to uphold the values that I know and understand. I will continue learning and trying to converse with people in order to reach better mutual understandings. But on this board, where people often do not speak plainly - or where they choose to ignore the meat of discussion in favour or pointing out that the speaker had a hair out of place - I have just had it with playing coddling and coaxing.

Frustration is by definition not adaptive and not productive. I meant it in this sense. In this sense, then, it is never the time for frustration.

You have a fine opportunity here to effect change. But it will take time. The greater the challenge, the greater the reward.

a little help then, sister!