rigorousintuition.ca

smilies and green text are no substitution for face to face conversation

misunderstandings abound


I'm just a soul who's intentions are good

post:

WHAT IS MISOGYNY?

...

Forward this ARTICLE to someone who needs to answer the CLUE PHONE

[embedded links in original: http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/ ... gyny.shtml ]

source:

HEARTLESS BITCH MANIFESTO

...


Has HBI got you all hot under the collar? Before you run off in a snit, ready to send email detailing the extent of your ire, look up the words "irony", "satire" and "caricature" in the dictionary....


HBI will always remember Bonnie Persson-John (DFB)

http://www.heartless-bitches.com/index.shtml

*

on edit: having just read this:

You CANNOT, in any way COPY, redistribute, reprint on paper or electronically, or include articles from HBI on your website, or distribute in an email, without the EXPRESS WRITTEN permission of Nataliep.

Who really exists, as do her lawyers.

You MAY, however, make reference to an article and LINK to it on HBI from your site. With the exception of banners and "Official Heartless Bitch" logos (for members), you may not reuse ANY graphics from this site. Copyright folks. It's against the law, and we HAVE successfully SUED people in the past for trademark infringement. (Heartless Bitches International is a US Registered Trademark).

http://www.heartless-bitches.com/heartless/hbifaq.shtml

i've deleted the posts above, but left the links. apologies all around.

*

Kate wrote:brainpanhandler,

bph wrote:I'm perfectly willing to examine my underlying prejudices and biases, but I am doubtful that would be received well at all. It seems to me that an honest exchange between genders is being stifled. Am I the only one who feels this way? I'm just scared to say anything at all.

Well, if I count in your estimation, I would do my damnedest to receive well anything you wrote about with the same kind of honesty you conveyed in THIS comment. So, is that enough?

Yes, you very much count in my estimation, as does everyone. Naturally though, I feel a greater or lesser affinity with people for a broad range of reasons. Plain old unadorned fairness or at least a good faith attempt at it ranks high on my list of laudible attributes. Based on what you have written in this thread and elsewhere that I have read you clearly possess a working fairness compass and that's enough for me in and of itself.

I'm wondering why you think an honest exchange is stifled.

I'm thinking that has it's origins in me and not outside of me. I'm going to defer an answer to this question for now. Lemme think on it.

seemslike a dream wrote:

smilies and green text are no substitution for face to face conversation

misunderstandings abound


I'm just a soul who's intentions are good:

Thanks for posting this. I love The Animals and Eric Burdon especially.
After watching this I clicked on another one of their songs in the related video
section of a song I always enjoyed. "It's My Life."

Holy shit, if you want an example of Misogyny watch this old Hullaboo performance
that was on regular television! I'd give you a hint but I think it would destroy
the "Mad Men" shock I experienced.

I'd start at 0:36 to skip most of the host's patter.

^^^^^yea how 'boot this? Burton....in my top ten list

Mother Earth is waitin' for you, yes she is.


Mother Earth is waitin' for you, yes she is.
She is big and she's round,
And it's cold way down in the ground.

You may not be happy all the time,
You may never be that way,
Mother Earth is waitin' for you,
For that debt you've got to pay.

Don't care how big you are,
I don't care what you were,
When it all is up,
You've got to go back to Mother Earth.

You could be blasé with life,
Only make love to foreign girls,
You may have a little jet, baby,
And fly all around the world,

Don't care how big you are,
I don't care what you were,
When it all is up,
You've got to go back to Mother Earth.
She is waitin' for you. Yea.

When it all is up,
You got to go back,
Way back to Mother Earth, yes.

I feel so bad, oh, all I can do is sing these blues, yea.
When it all is up,
You've got to go back to Mother Earth.
Oh baby you hear what I say?


and check out magusmagic7 Burton vids

Eric Burdon & War - Spirit (Live, 1971) HD

brainpanhandler wrote:
I'm thinking that has it's origins in me and not outside of me. I'm going to defer an answer to this question for now. Lemme think on it.

that's excellent. and no, you're certainly not the only person who may feel the way you've previously described.

[ime, this is not a conversation men ever have without drugs being involved]

i couldn't possibly be honest about some things even under torture.

i'd like to try to hamper my biases and inherent tendencies to objectification. sure. but i wouldn't know where or how to start. besides i'm not sure i'd really like it.

some things are hard to give up. others impossible.

-------

compared2what? wrote:(off-topic)

No, seriously

[yes. i got married. with a priest even]

contempt breeds familiarity.

(Love is the Law)

brainpanhandler,

Thinking is good. And even though you know it already, I like saying it again: I'm all ears.

Vanlose --

I particularly love the first article you posted here. Especially these parts:

So what a misogynist truly loves is the shallow image of women that exists only in one’s mind and is illustrated in society in such things as pornography or mainstream media that espouses that ideal. The hatred is directed at real women, for not living up to a misogynist’s expectations of women being easy to control and for not providing adequate stimulation for men’s interest.

The bolded parts are key, to me. As I mentioned earlier, I gained a lens through which to view all "POWER OVER" relationships (misogyny and patriarchy, racism, toxic nationalism, fascism, abuse of children, heterosexism, warmongering) when I read the book, "Controlling People" by Patricia Evans.

All these forms of human-caused misery (and any other such relationships I forgot to include) proceed from the assumption that one group of human beings is inherently more valuable, and entitled to respect (and honor, resources, privilege, etc.) than another group. I agree with Evans that this sort of assumption is always built on a sick delusion, because if there is anything whatsoever "good" about being human, it's the inherent dignity of each human being across all the artificial classifications of who's the in-group and who's the "other." I freely admit I can't prove this last sentence in any way, but rather it's a firmly held belief.

Although for me this belief originally began in a religious context, it needs no such context whatsoever. I also find any division into religious/secular and believer/atheist, religion1/religion2 etc., whereby humans point to "others" as "lesser than," equally objectionable.

Now it seems that it is historically always the case that believers in any delineation of a set of "valuable human beings" versus "lesser than human beings" are PRIMARILY those persons who are members of the respective "valuable" in-group." And yet! -- Any member of a "lesser than" classification group can agree (or appear to agree) with the "POWER OVER" rights of the in-group, whether as a result of thoroughgoing brainwashing or a mere desire to accrue benefits from current power structures or some unknowable mixture thereof, thus supporting (or appearing to support) the human injustice in question, too. Hence the 20th century colloquial meaning of "Uncle Tom," just as one example.

Now when we think of this as always being a delusion, it's easy to understand that the delusion can only be maintained and nurtured when the in-group REFUSES TO SEE the REALITY of those who are "lesser than." So, in the case of misogyny, the full-fledged misogynist will NEVER agree to see the REAL WOMAN. This is because the purpose of the delusion is to falsely prop up the in-group's identity, which can ONLY be accomplished by CONTROLLING the target group. To control and effectively label a sub-group as "lesser than," one must block out any evidence that the target is equally human. There are all sorts of "mental tricks" abusers of all stripes employ in order to convince themselves that the DELUSION of superiority is true.

This exact mechanism also happens to be the same dynamic involved in turning (any nonsociopathic) military recruits into a fighting army, willing to kill its "target." The "enemy" must be dehumanized, always.

I think "Jim," the author of that article I like missed another possibility. He highlights the sexual objectification of women, yet that can happen in reverse as well. By which I mean, for instance, that my husband would punish me for being "real" by refusing to so much as hug me or touch me, let alone making love. I sadly learned too late that he was abused by both his parents at a very early age, but that his mother's malign neglect hurt him the most. He is fearful of physical encounters with ANY woman because it could lead to the scariest thing of all: human intimacy, which he needs desperately but is unwilling to accept. It's tragic. He admits he's fundamentally abusive by means of malign neglect (of his son by a former relationship, as well as women), he can even see all of the dynamics, and yet I've seen him go into dissociative states when I've steadfastly refused (without any retaliatory agression on my part) to be "UNREAL" for his delusional "comfort" to avoid the notion that I'm human and of equal value.

Wow: the thread that keeps on giving. Thanks VK for the link to Heartless Bitches manifesto, BPH for realtime honesty, and Kate, C_W, C2W, PW, Wallflower and all for keeping it real.

Kate wrote:..the delusion can only be maintained and nurtured when the in-group REFUSES TO SEE the REALITY of those who are "lesser than."

That refusal-to-see seems fundamental to the power game, which makes for some interesting dilemmas. How do you discuss something when the other party denies its existence? How to make a misogynist (religious supremicist/racist/looks-ist ...) see what they're doing? By analogy seems the obvious answer: placing the in-group member in an out-group context, letting them feel the injustice, and then pointing out the parrallels with their in-group behaviour.

How to test if someone is an in-group power abuser? Simply stepping outside the assumptions/rules of correct behaviour of the in-group is often enough, as it provokes backlash and punishment from in-group adherents.
eg. woman doesn't pander to egocentric male; muslim declines to acknowledge superiority of christianity; black person sits in front of bus.

It strikes me that by learning to conciously see the assumptions and rules set by in-groups, rather than just unconciously obeying them, it becomes possible to 'pick a fight' anywhere and everywhere. Doesn't mean you have to, but that there is a choice.

wallflower wrote: We're sensitive folks, so catcalls directed at a woman walking down the street are easily identified as asshole behavior. We know that in the gut, but to get to the constituents of misogyny it seems to me we have to try to explain why catcalling is bad and not just point to catcalling as evidence for misogyny.

meant to get to this before...

catcalls are bad because they are objectifying. To me, anyone who feels entitled to objectify anyone else must on some level have a terrific disdain for the person s/he is objectifying. It's pretty close to hate.

Can hate be involuntary? Unconscious? Sure, I think it can.

I'm back to arguing that it is unforgivable for anyone - including victims of it - to participate in oppression. (sorry PW, if you're still reading, I know you disagree). My argument is that grown people have made a choice: to learn about their world and the other humans that live in it or to concentrate solely on that which serves them personally. The refusal to examine the way in which one's life intersects with and influences the lives of others, particularly when the refusal is based on not wanting to know... is hateful to the integrity of our species.

I think that mocking or making light of claims of oppression is tantamount to refusing to examine it and it is harmful and shameful when done by the people to whom the oppressed has turned for understanding.

So.. catcalls... they aren't what they're cracked up to be. They're a relatively disgusting thing to be subjected to. Still, women don't usually complain about them. "It's just the way it is." And besides, it'snotthatbigadeal. They were just appreciating you! You're lucky if you get noticed! blah blah blah.. and so they go on.

wintler2 wrote:That refusal-to-see seems fundamental to the power game,

absolutely. It underpins it.

wintler2 wrote:How do you discuss something when the other party denies its existence?

after 40 years of knowing my mother, I can tell you that you can't. Best you can do is walk away and keep your guard up.

wintler2 wrote:By analogy seems the obvious answer: placing the in-group member in an out-group context, letting them feel the injustice, and then pointing out the parrallels with their in-group behaviour.

It would be amazing if we could all be the "other" for a couple of weeks - but man would we end up with some identity issues!

wintler2 wrote:It strikes me that by learning to conciously see the assumptions and rules set by in-groups, rather than just unconciously obeying them, it becomes possible to 'pick a fight' anywhere and everywhere. Doesn't mean you have to, but that there is a choice.

Choice. Yes, exactly. In my above post I commented that we all do make this choice - to see or not to see. Once you've seen though, it can be daunting since you really do feel that you have a minefield of potential battles in front of you.

VERY good questions, wintler!

That refusal-to-see seems fundamental to the power game, which makes for some interesting dilemmas. How do you discuss something when the other party denies its existence?

How to test if someone is an in-group power abuser?

I too will use the word "abuser" to denote either groups, sub-groups, or individuals who abuse power by attempting to control another group, sub-group, or individual not by peaceful pursuasion based on mutual dignity, but by forcing (physically, emotionally, verbally) POWER OVER the "other."

To give you my take on it, I'll use the instance which first woke me up to what was happening to me, because it shows a means of discovery clearly. Which is to say, this is not an attempt to personalize things, indeed it's the opposite, to proceed from the personal outward. This notion of power and its abuse is something I've been cogitating on for more than a year, and I'm convinced so far that it is indeed the juncture of the personal and the political.

On the homefront, I was unhappy and as it turns out, I had been brainwashed as to the reasons why. I had accepted at face value the notion that it was my disability that made not only me, but my husband unhappy. For years I had hated the fact that my disability left him with so little free time. He hadn't ever been nasty to me until after I was disabled.*** He spoke of how much he hated having no free time to disengage, "wind down," relax, and leave the city to go out into the woods to experience nature and "recharge."

This made lots of sense to me, so once all my necessary surgeries were over, I worked out a variety of ways in which I could get the care I needed from others, in a way that wouldn't cost money, so that he could get that free time wherever he chose to spend it, for however long he determined he needed it. I was thrilled at the idea that his needs could be met, and looked forward to telling him.

The result? Blind, red-faced silent rage and more coldness than I'd ever experienced before. I was given to understand that although he said his problem was free time, his problem was NOT free time or relaxation. Soon I recognized he was always at his most angry whenever I was reasonable and took him at his word. As I came to see, that was because he had to find a NEW ostensible reason for his bad treatment of me.

So there's a big clue. Irrationality and shifting, mutually exclusive justifications for being mistreated. And all one needs to do is listen to a few State Department press conferences to see this dynamic in all its glory. I'm picking the US State Department merely because it's "close to home," so to speak. Any foreign ministry of a country abusive to other nations will do to find the irrational, shifting double-speak. The same is true when reading the statements of authoritarian governments when talking about its citizens. Irrational, shifting double-speak. Any excuse will do, when the purpose is the mistreatment itself.

It strikes me that by learning to conciously see the assumptions and rules set by in-groups, rather than just unconciously obeying them, it becomes possible to 'pick a fight' anywhere and everywhere. Doesn't mean you have to, but that there is a choice.

Excellent insight, along with the individual examples you gave in your previous paragraph. Although I would most definitely NOT call it "picking a fight," because that phrase (which I'm happy to see you put in quotes) is the mentality of the oppressor. All one has to do is quietly, peacefully, non-violently assert one's own dignity and equal value as a human being ("POWER WITHIN").....And the abuser (individual, group, government) will ALWAYS feel attacked, and justified to engage in "retaliation" to protect himself/herself/themselves from "attack." A government which suddenly begins calling peaceful protestors "terrorists" and retaliating with deadly weapons is really not different in dynamics from a husband hitting his wife because he "had to," she provoked the assault by "talking back" or the parent who beats the child because he/she "had to," as it was the disobedience or disrepect which caused the "disciplinary" response.

This is the way I've been struggling over the past year to understand all sorts of things.

*** When I read the first Patricia Evans book I happened to pick up and she pointed out that an abuser often only felt comfortable enough to engage in flagrant abuse when his/her target was vulnerable and less able to escape by being "tied down" -- living far away from family and friends, caring for children, or losing mobility through illness or disability -- I felt a hideous chill of recognition up and down my spine.

I also know it's impossible to force someone to see who is dead set on NOT SEEING. The only response to that is to develop one's own "POWER WITHIN" which is what I'm working on intently now. It ain't easy, under an individual roof OR under the "roof" of oppressive systems the world over.

These lyrics mean even more to me now than when I first heard them in the 1990's:

It's coming from the sorrow in the street,
the holy places where the races meet;
from the homicidal bitchin'
that goes down in every kitchen
to determine who will serve and who will eat.
From the wells of disappointment
where the women kneel to pray
for the grace of God in the desert here
and the desert far away:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

Sail on, sail on
O mighty Ship of State!
To the Shores of Need
Past the Reefs of Greed
Through the Squalls of Hate
Sail on, sail on, sail on, sail on.
-- Leonard Cohen, Democracy

Derrick Jenson puts this in a little broader context that I think is appropriate here.

Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.

Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.

http://www.endgamethebook.org/Excerpts/1-Premises.htm

Of course society is misogynistic. Of course men are generally going to react defensively when a woman speaks her mind on these issues and will proceed to attempt to rationalize it away. Misogyny is cooked into the system and is in many ways indistinguishable from the system. Culture is not our friend.

As a white male, I don't believe I have ever been in grave fear for my life or for the integrity of my body ... but I would guess that nearly every woman on earth has felt that way at one time or another ... and a fairly significant percentage have had those fears realized ... some in the most horrible ways. Much of this is invisible to us. So it's good to just listen and to the best of our abilities, see the world through her eyes.

-ST

Canadian_watcher:

catcalls are bad because they are objectifying. To me, anyone who feels entitled to objectify anyone else must on some level have a terrific disdain for the person s/he is objectifying. It's pretty close to hate.

We agree that catcalls are morally wrong. I'm not sure about disdain and hatred as being pretty much the same. But I'm trying to understand you, so here's the way I'm construing what you're saying: Catcalls are evidence of misogyny. Is that right?

The point I am trying to make is that it doesn't seem to me that an answer to the question "What constitutes Misogyny?" can be arrived at by adding together data about ill treatment of women by men. I'm understanding the question as more like: What are the reasons for misogyny? rather than Can we make a list of examples of misogyny?

Canadian_watcher:

I'm back to arguing that it is unforgivable for anyone - including victims of it - to participate in oppression. (sorry PW, if you're still reading, I know you disagree). My argument is that grown people have made a choice: to learn about their world and the other humans that live in it or to concentrate solely on that which serves them personally. The refusal to examine the way in which one's life intersects with and influences the lives of others, particularly when the refusal is based on not wanting to know... is hateful to the integrity of our species.

I understand this as a statement about ethics, that is norms about how we ought to live.

Catcalls are objectionable because they offend morals, that is how we ought to treat each other; as mentioned above there's an ethical case made against them; and we might add that they offend our sense of honor, that is codes which govern norms of respect. Bad, bad, bad. The way honor, ethics and morality are presented are more or less the way Kwame Anthony Appiah uses the terms.

I'm not sure, but one reading of your post in re my post might be that you imagine that I'm either refusing to examine how my life intersects with others or that I'm advocating such a refusal; or perhaps even both. To be clear I don't advocate such. But I also don't think that hatred can be reduced to such a refusal. The examination of how our lives intersect and influence one another on the other hand may illuminate morality, ethics and honor.

It seems to me that emotions have objects. Hatred is a bit hard to pin down, but the notion seems to fit what we call emotions. What's bad about sexual objectification is in part the failure of persons to empathize with others. This seems an important part but not sufficient to provide the reasons for oppression.

Rene Girard invented mimetic character of desire. He observed that the desire for an object was provoked by the desire for the object by another. So in Girard's idea of mimetic desire there is a triangular relationship between subject-model-object.

I don't really know much about Girard, but some here do. I bring his idea of mimetic desire up as an example of a model for how violence between people is caused. The idea of mimetic desire also draws attention to ways that societies have attempted to construct ways of peaceful reciprocity.

An individual can objectify women, but sexual objectification also operates of a society level. An individual may examine the ways "in which one's life intersects with and influences the lives of others" but it is not clear to me how such personal examination effects change at the society level.

I feel as though I haven't kept up with this thread and still trying to come to grips with the earlier ends of this thread. It seems one thing to talk about an individual as a misogynist and another to speak about misogyny at the society level. The relationships between the different ways of talking about misogyny important too, but how is it that one jumps the levels of personal to societal?

Kate's pointing to the distinction between "power-over" and power from within or "empowerment" is really great. I'm not clear how "power-over" provokes misogyny, but looking for how it might seems a good place to look for what constitutes misogyny. I hadn't been aware of Patricia Evans before, but was familiar with the distinction between different sorts of power from Starhawk.

It's beyond the purview of this thread, but when it comes to trying to invent peaceful reciprocity, that is once we've figured out what constitutes misogyny, Kwame Appiah pointing to honor as a way to effect better morality in his book "The Honor Code" seems a worth discussion. http://appiah.net/books/the-honor-code/

wallflower wrote:Rene Girard invented mimetic character of desire. He observed that the desire for an object was provoked by the desire for the object by another. So in Girard's idea of mimetic desire there is a triangular relationship between subject-model-object.

He takes it further- that ultimately what one desires of another is what is perceived as the others' fulfillment, or the lack of the emptiness one feels, may even be the spark of the Divine that is occluded in oneself, therefore the object of ones' desire, if it's a person, becomes ones' fiercest competitor. What gets triangled in is an abstract quality that may or may not be present outside of the desire-ers' projection and is not transferable in any case.

And all competition tends towards violence.

However, the real issue at stake in mimetic rivalry is not simply the possession of any particular object/product. Mimetic rivalry replaces acquisitive desire for coveted things when the rivals become aware at an unconscious level that they “lack” part of what it is to be a complete human being. The rivals’ experience of their own lack therefore entails a “misrecognition” of the other as whole and complete. The other is seen as the representative of “genuine” personhood: s/he is the “model” that embodies the desires and possessions that constitute “authentic” human being. At bottom, rivals covet not a common object but each other’s “wholeness.” In mimetic rivalry the other exists simultaneously as model and obstacle. These dual roles are inseparable because there is competition to fulfill desire. The coupling of model and obstacle leads to violence.

To an external viewer, the rivals then form doubles: in taking each other as a model, each creates/ becomes a mutual obstacle for each other. Doubles invariably lock into a reciprocity of escalating frustration and antagonism, and this mimetic exchange becomes violent. However, the rivals appear to each other as something other than human—rivals often see each others as monstrous.

http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/pmahon/Girard.html

I speak only from personal experience, of course.

"An individual may examine the ways "in which one's life intersects with and influences the lives of others" but it is not clear to me how such personal examination effects change at the society level."

As the familiar adage states, "be the change that you want to see in the world". Societal change does, in fact, begin with personal change. That's how a critical mass of personal change is created. And cultures/societies are driven by the dictates of its critical mass.

"It seems one thing to talk about an individual as a misogynist and another to speak about misogyny at the society level. The relationships between the different ways of talking about misogyny important too, but how is it that one jumps the levels of personal to societal?"

One way to make that jump is to consider the possibility that personal change is societal change. But then again, and if that is true, no chasm exists between the two. Effecting one effects the others.

"I'm not clear how "power-over" provokes misogyny, but looking for how it might seems a good place to look for what constitutes misogyny"

The desire to feel power-full generally issues from a self-identification of being power-less. The truly power-full rarely seek to "power over" anyone, or feel power-full at the expense of someone else's power-lessness. Misogyny is just one form of devaluation and abuse that the power-less exact to feel power-full. There are others.

Again, I only speak from personal experience.