rigorousintuition.ca

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:59 pm**

Attributed quotes that speak for me...

Simone de Beauvoir wrote:The most sympathetic of men never fully comprehend woman's concreted situation.

Rebecca West wrote:I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.

Mary Wollstonecraft wrote:I do not wish them to have power over men, but over themselves.

Sally Kempton wrote:It's hard to fight an enemy who has outposts in your head.

Rebecca West wrote:A strong hatred is the best lamp to bear in our hands as we go over the dark places of life, cutting away the dead things men tell us to revere.

Susan B. Anthony wrote:Cautious, careful people always casting about to preserve their reputation or social standards never can bring about reform. Those who are really in earnest are willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathies with despised ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:05 pm**

Okay, but this one cuts both ways:

The most sympathetic of women never fully comprehend man's concreted situation.

That's just how it is, for both genders.

As for this one:

A strong hatred is the best lamp to bear in our hands as we go over the dark places of life, cutting away the dead things men tell us to revere.

I think that's just a horrible philosophy. Hatred is horrible, it consumes you like a cancer.

I'm a man, and you hate me for it. That's just not a good thing. Especially for you.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:10 pm**

Nordic wrote:Okay, but this one cuts both ways:

The most sympathetic of women never fully comprehend man's concreted situation.
That's just how it is, for both genders.

Are you saying there's no power imbalance between the sexes Nordic?

Nordic wrote: As for this one:

A strong hatred is the best lamp to bear in our hands as we go over the dark places of life, cutting away the dead things men tell us to revere.
I think that's just a horrible philosophy. Hatred is horrible, it consumes you like a cancer.

I'm a man, and you hate me for it. That's just not a good thing. Especially for you.

The statement does not express support for a hatred of people but of deeds and ideas.

I don't hate you Nordic, I never hated anyone just because he was a man, and I deeply resent the accusation, and I request an apology.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:12 pm**

Lemmy Kilminster
For a woman to be truly interesting, she's got to be something of a bitch, doesn't she?

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:21 pm**

Project Willow wrote:
Nordic wrote:Okay, but this one cuts both ways:

The most sympathetic of women never fully comprehend man's concreted situation.
That's just how it is, for both genders.
Are you saying there's no power imbalance between the sexes Nordic?

No of course not.

Nordic wrote: As for this one:

A strong hatred is the best lamp to bear in our hands as we go over the dark places of life, cutting away the dead things men tell us to revere.
I think that's just a horrible philosophy. Hatred is horrible, it consumes you like a cancer.

I'm a man, and you hate me for it. That's just not a good thing. Especially for you.
The statement does not express support for a hatred of people but of deeds and ideas.

I don't hate you Nordic, I never hated anyone just because he was a man, and I deeply resent the accusation, and I request an apology.

If you actually don't hate me, and men in general, then I apologize.

But I got a different impression over the course of this thread.

And that quote made me think that you thought hating men was a good idea.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:26 pm**

JackRiddler wrote:
charlie meadows wrote:Your position begs questions...

Is breastfeeding obscene in itself?
No.

That doesn't even require an explanation.

Is walking obscene in itself? Is eating? Talking?

For this question to be "begged" requires that someone could even imagine characterizing breast-feeding as "obscene." Which, I have already submitted, requires a raft of assumptions that I believe at their core to be irrational, conditioned as reflexive, and anti-human. They also unfortunately seem to be common to many civilizations, although not all.

Now. First non-rhetorical question for you:

Do you think breastfeeding is obscene in itself? Do you think anyone is required to explain why not?

Is Facebook an inappropriate venue for its display?
You're begging the question of whether Facebook is an appropriate venue for anything.

If so, however, then: No. (Which is the literal answer to your question. Facebook is not an "inappropriate" venue.)

The questions are all interconnected and lead from a certain perspective first to last. The first was rhetorical, leading inevitably to the second, and so on, taken within the historical context of this last century, in the West. Each of the questions second to the last are less and less rhetorical and more solicitous.

Exposure of more and more of the human body has become more acceptable in the West over the course of the past century in all media.

Sexuality?

No?

If so, how so? Maybe due to the efforts of venues such as this one? Maybe in spite of them? Both at once?

If not, what is the process in play?

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:10 pm**

.

charlie meadows, before I would take this up again with you, I would ask that you expand on that answer, and deal with some of the questions I posed in return to your first set of questions (all of which I answered). Also, that you make explicit your own views, viz. "What is the process in play?" Sorry, no more footsie with the evocative questions. Thanks.

Otherwise my position stands and will probably require no repetition that, regardless of the sum total of developments in the West or elsewhere, and whether or not we agree on those, breast-feeding and matter-of-fact pictures of it (posted by the actual mothers, in this case) should cause no more alarm or controversy or enforcement of bans than walking and pictures of that; and, insofar as they do cause such controversy, it's attributable entirely to a sickness of the culture and of those conditioned in to react in such a way.

.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:14 pm**

Project Willow wrote:Attributed quotes that speak for me...

Simone de Beauvoir wrote:The most sympathetic of men never fully comprehend woman's concreted situation.

Much as I want to say,

hey, what about meee?! I try so hard! (sometimes)

I know from experience to also be the case with me. At the same time, the reverse is not nearly as true. Even unsympathetic women comprehend men's situations as a rule far more easily (and on average, with reasonable caveats, etc.) than vice-versa.

Rebecca West wrote:I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.

Yup. Seen this very much so.

Thanks.

.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:18 pm**

JackRiddler wrote:.

charlie meadows, before I would take this up again with you, I would prefer that you expand on that answer (including dealing with some of the questions I posed in return) and make clear your own views. Thanks.

My opinion?

Is breastfeeding obscene in itself?

Breastfeeding is not obscene. All four of my babies were breastfed, for as long as three years, often in public, without any public reaction.

Is Facebook an inappropriate venue for its display?

That is not for me to decide. Why anyone would pay any attention to Facebook is a mystery to me.

At this time in history?

My insinuation here is that there is a process unfolding.

How much has the public display of the human body changed in the past century?

Somewhat rhetorical but open to interpretation. My tentative conclusion, subject to change, is that attitudes in the West toward the human body, and sexuality of almost all kinds are increasingly liberal (if I can use that word). And exponentially so. Herein lies the qi.

Is there any reason why the acceptability of the public display of the human body has changed in that time?

Less and less rhetorical. My opinion, Jack? It has to do with supply and demand of available resources. Among other things. Excellent subject matter IMO. I focus my attention here.

At the current rate of change, what is the likely outcome of that change?

IMO, breastfeeding will become increasingly tolerated, and even expected as time goes by, despite increasingly strident but diminishing propaganda to do otherwise.

If the display of breastfeeding should be acceptable on Facebook or other public venues, why not stills of sexual acts, or videos with sound? Sexual intercourse, after all, is a beautiful act to watch and even more beautiful to participate in.

This statement should have made my attitude toward breastfeeding obvious. I have concerns however with having such a laissez-faire attitude toward public display of sexuality (as in the sexual act), especially where children are the audience. You may feel otherwise. My belief, probably not subject to change, is that children need time to be children. That's just me.

Why not soft porn, if it's artistic, and doesn't demean any of the actors or the audience, and it's done tastefully?

See the above answer. You might interject that you are certainly not advocating children watching soft porn online. I did it for you.

Is there a consciousness, a conspiracy if you must, at work--other than something like the zeitgeist--guiding this transition, pushing these boundaries?

Not at all rhetorical. I imagine the zeitgeist and any number of conspiracies at work. Is there a single overriding worldwide conspiracy at work? Dunno, can't say. Who cares? Does it matter?

If there is, what is its purpose? Is it titillation? Is it inurement?

To what end? I leave that to others. I'm somewhat more interested in the process than the outcome? Is it titillation? Yes. Is it inurement? Yes. IMO inurement is another excellent topic of conversation.

Now that I have answered your (my) questions...

Should it matter what I think the answers to the questions are? My opinion: No.

Don't the questions rest on their own merit? My opinion: Yes.

Isn't it enough to ask the questions for others to discuss? My opinion: Yes.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:19 pm**

.
I'm just curious what people disagree about at this point?
Other then attempts to have someone else to completely
agree with every personal philosophical lacuna it doesn't seem like anyone
really disagrees that women are subject to misogyny by
men (and women) in most cultures and this is a bad thing.

Or am I missing something?

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:32 pm**

brekin wrote:.
I'm just curious what people disagree about at this point?
Other then attempts to have someone else to completely
agree with every personal philosophical lacuna it doesn't seem like anyone
really disagrees that women are subject to misogyny by
men (and women) in most cultures and this is a bad thing.

Or am I missing something?

Well, I'm glad that it's so clear to you (seriously.. I am.) But, there's a finer point in the OP, which is to kind of try and corral that which constitutes misogyny. We're just batting idea back and forth to find out what some more subtle forms might be.. or if the subtler forms can actually be attributed to 'hate' at all.

Thanks for joining in.. we're at a good place in the discussion at the moment.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:47 pm**

.

charlie meadows,

Your opinions once stated differ greatly from those implied by your list of questions. And I don't think I subjected those to an unfair reading. So while I don't think your questions follow necessarily, it's just as well you explained.

.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:29 pm**

I've not been privy to the rest your conversation but:

charlie meadows wrote:This statement should have made my attitude toward breastfeeding obvious. I have concerns however with having such a laissez-faire attitude toward public display of sexuality (as in the sexual act), especially where children are the audience. You may feel otherwise. My belief, probably not subject to change, is that children need time to be children. That's just me.

I think this is an excellent topic for a new thread and I hope you or another interested poster will start one.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:33 pm**

For all those who would despair over the course of, ehem, discourse in this thread...

Men, Feminism and Men's Contradictory Experiences of Power
by Michael Kaufman

.....

As men's power is challenged, those things that came as a compensation, a reward, or a life-long distraction from any potential pain are progressively reduced or, at least, called into question. As women's oppression becomes problematized, many forms of this oppression become problems for men. Individual gender-related experiences of pain and disquietude among men have become increasingly manifest and have started to gain a social hearing and social expression in widely-diverse forms, including different branches of the men's movement – from reactionary, anti-feminists, to the Bly-type mythopoetic movement, to pro-feminist men's organizing.

In other words, if gender is about power, then as actual relations of power between men and women, and between different groups of men (such as straight and gay men or black and white men) start to shift, then our experiences of gender and our gender definitions must also begin to change. The process of gender work is ongoing and includes this process of reformulation and upheaval.

.....

What makes the current situation different is that pro-feminism among men (or at least acceptance of aspects of feminist critiques and feminist political action) is reaching such large-scale dimensions. Ideas that were almost unanimously discounted by men (and indeed most women) only twenty-five years ago, now have widespread legitimacy. When I lead workshops in high schools, colleges, and workplaces, men – even those who are on the surface are upset by the pace of change in gender relations or because they feel slighted or put-down – will give a list of the forms of power and privilege that men are still accorded and women still denied, and they will suggest without prompting that women are right to be concerned about these disparities.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:36 pm**

Project Willow wrote:I've not been privy to the rest your conversation but:

charlie meadows wrote:This statement should have made my attitude toward breastfeeding obvious. I have concerns however with having such a laissez-faire attitude toward public display of sexuality (as in the sexual act), especially where children are the audience. You may feel otherwise. My belief, probably not subject to change, is that children need time to be children. That's just me.
I think this is an excellent topic for a new thread and I hope you or another interested poster will start one.

Project Willow,

Après vous, mademoiselle.

rigorousintuition.ca

What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: Re:

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?