What constitutes Misogyny?

[Searcher08]

Hey Searcher08, I got a little clue for you, ..."think" and "criticize" are NOT the same words, look 'em up in the dictionary.

Thanks for that. I appreciate being reminded of the many distinctions in thinking. I attempted to list some of them earlier in my ALL CAPS section.

My biggest mistake was attempting a dialogue with you.

Im sorry you think that. Cos I imagine it involved a lot of time and thought given the sheer number and length of posts we exchanged.I dont regret trying and havent looked on it as not worth the time and attention[/quote]

Most other people would have responded to your accusations of "fascist thought controller!" with a hearty:
"Stuff your fucking accusations in the stinky, dark, elastic depression of your behind region!" or
perhaps: "FUUUUCCCCKKKK YOOOOOOOOOUUUU!"

'Most other people'? How do you know how 'most other people' would have responded??
Your response to disagreement appears to be turning into what we call in London a "Sweary Mary" - and sounding like a friend of mine who has Tourettes.

Yeah, but I'm not always very savvy when it comes to protracted character assaults.

I agree with you there- cos Im sorry you think I am attacking you personally. I'm have not and am not.
Life's too short and all that. I have a ton of exposure in my life to seeing people slog it out and it's boring as hell.
That doesnt mean I will back down when the temperature gets hot, however.
I find it easy to talk about and engage with people in general. Call me old fashioned but an ounce of pleasant goes a long way in most circumstances. Some people dont care for that approach.- and dont have a lets all be friends attitude - that's fine with me too.
I did find hard work to talk with you - we seem to grate for some reason. You seem to take thoughts that you really disagree with as a personal affront, so when you meet someone who calls your whole thinking infrastructure at the very least potentially fascistic, that is taken as an existential threat, when I'm engaging in a discussion about paradigms and thinking and gender perceptions. I wondered if it was due to something as simple as clashing Myers Briggs styles - Im an ENTP, so I am big picture, methodology, objective, strategy not tactics, vision etcetc.
.

Wait, wait, it's not too late, you're still at it in that second post above, so, in response to your continued accusations about my motives and actions,
Searcher08, FUUUUUUUCCCCCKKKKK YOOOOOOOUUUUUUU!

That is the THIRD time you have communicated that in one post.

Im hearing that you dont like my thinking.
For someone who expresses so much concern about safety, you are not paying much attention with how you are landing on the other side of the conversation.

I just hate it when someone unfairly perceives me as a pasture pie in the field of their neuroses.

When you attribute to me things I dont say, I tend to feel stuck and unsure of what to do.
I empathise as you appear to feel I hate you or have a massive down on you, when I dont. I dont hate anybody.
You have no idea what I think of you, simply because you have not asked me.
If you asked me, I would have told you and it certainly wouldn't have been as a cowpat.
Im worried that what I think of you has importance to upset you in the first place - Im just some guy in West London, typing this on a sunny day and finding it hard to read the screen in the sunlight.
I'll mention I did already share my feelings I have had around you here and you didnt comment on them.

I think I just broke the rules.

Oops?
I have a right to communicate on this board without sustained verbal personal swearing abuse from anyone.
Your last line can be read as "I dont take the Board rules seriously".

[Canadian_watcher]

Searcher, I don't know what you want out of your time here on RI. Seems to me that you enjoy being a thorn in people's sides rather than a seeker of understanding.

I'm absolutely NOT going to get in to it with you, so reply if you want but be forewarned that I'm not up for an argument.

[Jeff]

Is it I, or has this entire thing gotten insanely ridiculous?

Thanks for asking. And I think right about here it's also worth asking whether meaningful conversation in this important thread has ceased.

[norton ash]

There are contributions in the gaps between Willow and Searcher.

One can skim through/ignore the pointless stuff, after all.

[23]

There are contributions in the gaps between Willow and Searcher.

One can skim through/ignore the pointless stuff, after all.

True that.

Better to use the virtual remote control in this thread, than to disconnect the cable.

[Cedars of Overburden]

If Jeff shuts this thread down, I want Kate to keep posting somewhere.

[Jeff]

I won't shut down the thread, but I want everyone posting in it to adhere to the topic.

[Searcher08]

Searcher, I don't know what you want out of your time here on RI. Seems to me that you enjoy being a thorn in people's sides rather than a seeker of understanding.

I'm absolutely NOT going to get in to it with you, so reply if you want but be forewarned that I'm not up for an argument.

Everyone at R.I. has many different things they want / need from getting here, I'm sure it is a rich stew.
For me, I am seeking to learn and challenge and mediate and enjoy and laugh and cry and smile and protect and fight bullies and have my jaw drop and eat humble pie and make friends and show love and listen and be kind and creative.
Canadian_Watcher, our perceptions of each other seem to mirror each other; I find you and Willow come across very similarly to me and am curious about the thinking styles (Myers Briggs/ Socionics) as maybe we are just 'chalk and cheese' thinking style wise. It can be a really strong effect.

I am interested in gender and have really enjoyed speaking with Kate and 23 about the subject - perhaps a good way forward for this thread might be that you and Willow and I draw a line here? I am aware of feedback from the community of it having moved from light to heat (with the Popcorn emoticons and posts taking a dive into Sweary Mary territory ) An idea is that Willow and you put me on Ignore and I will undertake not to post in any threads you start (which includes THIS one from now on) or make posts that refer to either of you?

I know from the business world that it is possible for people to work brilliantly together with others they dont care for personally at all.

Fresh start?

Maybe a creative mutual invisibility is the best thing for wider RI community here.

[JackRiddler]

.

"What constitutes Misogyny?"

The following story indicates widespread misogyny or related sicknesses. It would be impossible without culturally engendered, conditioned repulsions and irrational reactions to humanity, women, children and self.

http://matadornetwork.com/life/the-most ... -internet/

It's much bigger than the Facebook angle! How is it possible that such a thing could ever become a public issue?

.

[brainpanhandler]

How is it possible that such a thing could ever become a public issue?

Don't you know that the body's impulses are dirty and sinful?

[charlie meadows]

.

"What constitutes Misogyny?"

The following story indicates widespread misogyny or related sicknesses. It would be impossible without culturally engendered, conditioned repulsions and irrational reactions to humanity, women, children and self.

http://matadornetwork.com/life/the-most ... -internet/

It's much bigger than the Facebook angle! How is it possible that such a thing could ever become a public issue?

.

Your position begs questions...

Is breastfeeding obscene in itself?

Is Facebook an inappropriate venue for its display?

At this time in history?

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

[norton ash]

I, for one, think there are way too many tits on the internet.

Facebook? They'll fight about Justin Bieber, and I don't care about that either.

[brainpanhandler]

[charlie meadows]

ASHERAH
ASTARTE
ISHTAR
ASHTART
ASHTORETH
ASTORETH
ASHET
ASET
TANIT-ASHTART
ASHTAROTH

ASHKAROFTH?

Good call.

[JackRiddler]

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.)

At this time in history?

Same answer. What's special about this time in history that would make you feel otherwise, in italics no less?

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

Where? Are you telling me I begged a question that would require as its answer an encyclopedia of mores and practices in many different cultures and languages? Are we talking about the Yanomami, Tokyo, Kabul, Utah, or the streets of San Francisco?

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

You could be getting at a lot of things here, so you'll have to tell me what you mean by this. Thanks.

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

Those who can afford it will walk around hidden by globes made of a dark swarm of nano-particles, which will completely obscure the sight of them and attack anyone who violates a six-foot perimeter. The rest will be starving in rags by the side of the road, scratching at their sores, not caring what is exposed. Congress will debate for years whether the law should limit the nano-swarm's attack perimeter in cities to four feet or five.

More serious answer: I dunno.

(Does one remedy "begged" questions by asking leading questions? If so, shouldn't these actually lead?)

What is the "likely" outcome of which of all the changes, plural? What is the "current rate of change" and what makes you think "rates of change" don't themselves change?

Just in case I've properly understood your gist: Of all possible extremes, I think your average nudist colony presents a better model for the future than Star Trek jump suits, or burkas. For both, fashion and ethics.

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.

I think you need to ask yourself what set of assumptions would cause you to make this linkage, instead of all the possible other linkages you could make. The issue is actually touched upon in the article (which I now wonder if you read) and might be summed up in the idea that breasts by natural function are mammary glands, and only secondarily sex objects (along with every other part of the body).

(I would add that the only thing that makes the sight of female breasts "obscene," and has turned them into such a dangerous instrument of arousal from mere sight, is the cultural proscription on their display. But some would find this provocative.)

More to the point: Do you think we can find pictures of children and even adults drinking milk from a glass on Facebook? Would you like Facebook to ban those?

Because I find the slurping part really disgusting. Not to mention that it also makes me think of how the cattle are treated, which qualifies as "obscene," if anything does.

One thing the article fails to say is whether the pictures were made available to all browsers (including those who aren't logged in), to all logged-in Facebook members, or only to "friends."

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

Indeed. Why not? Would you like to be on the committee of censors who judge which is which? Or wait, the committee that writes the algorithm that judges... (I think we're illustrating why everyone should get the fuck off Facebook and back on the Internet.)

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

In this case I certainly don't "must" a "conspiracy." That term, which almost always sheds more heat than light, is entirely your insertion. Let's be clear about that.

At this point in your list, I hardly think I've begged very many questions. Rather, you seem to have a particular narrative in mind, and it looks like you are attempting to present your narrative via the device of listing the questions you say I begged.

However, if you want to make a case, it is usually better served by making it, instead of encoding it in set of vague questions.

If there is, what is its purpose? Is it titillation? Is it inurement?[/i]

See, because encoding your message allows people to decode it as they wish, and makes it easy for them to slap you with the strawman. Or completely misunderstand you.

For example, someone might think you are saying that

"Picture of a smiling mommy proudly nursing both of her twins at the same time"

EQUALS

"Piece of the NWO strategy to dehumanize and desensitize everyone, traumatize children so that they grow up into Huxleyan mind-control drones, and topple the Old Religions (as the only remaining checks on total moral depravity) by pushing Katy Perry's tits on Sesame Street."

It would be terrible if someone characterized your gist in that way. We wouldn't want that. That's why it's usually better to just say what you mean, rather than vaguely intimate or insinuate.

.