What constitutes Misogyny?

[Stephen Morgan]

There are people who benefit from all types of exploitation and inequalities and so their interest is in maintaining divisions and the status quo.
They definitely lose power when people demand more equality. When power is concentrated their is no way to equalize it without some people
losing their current share. Many people believe they deserve their four cars and three houses.

Even those can't be as happy with their goods as they would be with a more equitable society, in which they weren't driven by greed, didn't resent those below them, weren't widely hated, didn't have to fear for their goods and chattels and so forth. I'd happily live in just the one mansion for a bit more happiness.

No one here has expressed a viewpoint specifically regarding the purely moral superiority of a worldview dispossessed of misogyny, but it's certainly the core of the issue. When misogynistic statements are identified by the women here, there is a moral lesson central to their perspective. What moral lessons follow naturally from your adamant questioning of their ability to identify such transgressions?

Why must everything have a moral lesson?

that I think should be the focus. But what happens is to not agree with every single statement in this thread makes this discussion impossible. Ironically to disagree is to treat someone as an equal. That's what you do with peers and equals. To order, dictate and conversely to be completely silent or submissive is what you do with superiors and inferiors.

Yes, barracuda's stance does occasionally come across as something akin to "she's got an opinion! oh, isn't she cute!? oh, diddums! did the nasty man argue with you?". To me, anyway. Patronising. Knight in shining armour stuff. Paternalistic, in fact.

I wish someone (maybe Morgan?) would school you here, because disagreement has happened a zillion times in this thread without a problem.

I prefer disagreeing with people. "Me too"ism is tedious and unproductive at beast, obsequious and sickening at worst. Bickering is the highest possible form of demonstrating affection. In public, at least. And the more trivial the issue the better. Intellectual engagement is the ultimate form of human discourse. Some people are very unreasonable and see disagreement as disrespect and enmity, unable to seperate "opponent" from "enemy". But C_w isn't one of those.

As long as you're having a discussion with someone civil disagreement is normally fine, but where you lot have gone wrong here is to continue arguing about who can determine if something is misogyny. I'm on the other side from Canadian_watcher on this issue, but I'm not arguing about it because it's a doomed discussion. When one side says women can tell misogyny by their experiences and the other says not, that's that. It's an entirely philosophical point.

So I don't believe women really have a special knowledge of misogyny. Fundamentally I believe "what is misogyny" should be subject to the same empirical standards as, say, "what is the most equitable way to reduce cruelty to animals", in which no group of humans can be claimed to have special status. What women believe about what represents misogyny and how misogyny effects them is important information from which much can no doubt be inferred by all sides, but it doesn't constitute a diagnosis in and of itself.

So, if you all insist on continuing to argue over the same issue ad infinitum you'll eventually run out of things which aren't insulting to say. So you should all just shut up about it and kiss and make up.

[Stephen Morgan]

Quotes are Morgan's:

But one shouldn't allow one's personal experiences to influence one's political beliefs anyway, certainly not to decide what it is that one believes. Political matters are too important to be treated as merely subjective.

bah.. you don't believe this, I know you don't, you've said so! Either that or you believe it but you can't separate the two, which is understandable, since all political belief is based on experience either first or second hand.

I try to base my positions on objective fact. Obviously my belief that the Tories are vermin, that's not objective. But my position that they have a pathetically awful record of economic mismanagement (or intentional mismanagement to benefit certain groups, of course), that's objective fact. My experiences may give me motivation and a certain edge, but not the core of my position.

Girls are given dolls and boys swords because that's what they ask for and constantly pester their parents for until the worn out adults acquiesce in their constant demands. I know, I've sold the things. You university pool club has a women's competition because otherwise women would complain about not being able to play in competition due to not being able to compete with the men. No doubt a legal challenge would be able to ensure women could enter the men's competition if any were gluttons for punishment and felt like entering

first off, what you're responding to is still from the editorial piece, not my original thoughts.

Quite so.

swords vs dolls = not inherent. IOW these desires are learned. but this is a no-win argument. nature vs nurture could go on (and has) for eons.

Nature and nurture feed into each other. Even if something wasn't inherent but came about for cultural factors, it may be inherent now. Swords and dolls aren't inherent, of course. But a more stereotypical conflict/nurturing model could be. Or that boys enjoy the craftsmanship of the sword, or the prospect of physical exertion as depicted in, for example, the Princess Bride, embodied in the sword. Whereas girls may want to have babies, look after babies, or manipulate tiny plastic people to their will. All I know is that swords are cool.

shooting pool - I'll have you know I didn't bring more that a dollar + cab fare to the bars when I was 20.. always won my drinks at the table. I felt a little bad beating all the swaggering guys but only because of sexism - not because of finances.

I'm sure you were very good, but I could no doubt find women who can outrun me. Men are still faster than women on average. A competition will attract people who aren't just used to playing about in bars. Obviously a university club competition isn't the Crucible (the big snooker venue in Sheffield, sort of like the Wembley of snooker), but for various reasons men far excel women in sporting competition. Even in Snooker, which isn't exactly athletic. Even in darts, of which I have a picture of world class competition here:



So the reason we have women's competitions in various sports is because women are at a physical disadvantage, in things like hand-eye co-ordination as much as strength, as in darts and snooker. High testosterone levels have a substantial upside.

[Canadian_watcher]

that's all some good old-fashioned type stuff there, thanks for a trip down memory lane.

I found this thread interesting, seeing as it's a bunch of people (men mostly, I think) who like guns:

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-193527.html

I like their back-and-forth about how well females perform in shooting. I sense almost NO sexism in their remarks, barring the usual cultural stuff and even that is at a minimum.

[barracuda]

Why must everything have a moral lesson?

Frankly, I never figured I'd have to explain that to a fundamentalist Christian. But okay, I'll try. Even in a completely secular discussion, the idea of fair treatment and equinamity have universal currency, if only due to the expectation that we should all be working towards the betterment of the society and the world as the most direct route towards raising the level of respect, of culture, of discussion, of even personal circumstance to a position which is optimally fulfilling and equitable and sustaining. And in virtually any particular, there exists a variety of paths toward a variety of ends, some of which are destructive, some of which are constructive, with regards to the welfare of the group. The assessment of the general good of these particulars towards betterment for all is the moral core of human procedure. I personally would argue that brekin's dismissal of the validity of women's concerns on the last few pages of this thread are more destructive to the conversation than constructive, thus my question to him. Doy.

However, for a person of your background, I assume the reason that everything has to have a moral lesson is a bit more straightforward, if somewhat mystical in nature.

barracuda's stance does occasionally come across as something akin to "she's got an opinion! oh, isn't she cute!? oh, diddums! did the nasty man argue with you?". To me, anyway. Patronising. Knight in shining armour stuff. Paternalistic, in fact.

Bah. My position differs from your own, and I agree, on the whole, with the women on the thread. If you'd like to view that as patronising, go ahead - I've been called worse as a result of these discussions. As I recall, I argued in favor of your own particpation here some pages back. Who's your daddy?

[barracuda]

So the reason we have women's competitions in various sports is because women are at a physical disadvantage, in things like hand-eye co-ordination as much as strength, as in darts and snooker. High testosterone levels have a substantial upside.

Baloney. We've had this discussion before, and the fact remains that women are superior to men in a variety of physical tests, and that it is only a gender bias which renders male-centric competition the sobriquet of "athletics" while female-centric physical skills are called something else entirely.

[Canadian_watcher]

So the reason we have women's competitions in various sports is because women are at a physical disadvantage, in things like hand-eye co-ordination as much as strength, as in darts and snooker. High testosterone levels have a substantial upside.

Baloney. We've had this discussion before, and the fact remains that women are superior to men in a variety of physical tests, and that it is only a gender bias which renders male-centric competition the sobriquet of "athletics" while female-centric physical skills are called something else entirely.

If Olympic hockey continues down the same path, though, we might see a shift in attitudes at least as far as women's hockey is concerned. They kicked ass & were so much more fun to watch than the men.

After hockey.. who knows? Basketball? Baseball? FOOTBALL?? A girl can dream..

[barracuda]

If women are going to compete in activities designed by men for the participation of men, they will always be at a severe disadvantage, obviously.

[Stephen Morgan]

Why must everything have a moral lesson?

Frankly, I never figured I'd have to explain that to a fundamentalist Christian. But okay, I'll try. Even in a completely secular discussion, the idea of fair treatment and equinamity have universal currency, if only due to the expectation that we should all be working towards the betterment of the society and the world as the most direct route towards raising the level of respect, of culture, of discussion, of even personal circumstance to a position which is optimally fulfilling and equitable and sustaining. And in virtually any particular, there exists a variety of paths toward a variety of ends, some of which are destructive, some of which are constructive, with regards to the welfare of the group. The assessment of the general good of these particulars towards betterment for all is the moral core of human procedure. I personally would argue that brekin's dismissal of the validity of women's concerns on the last few pages of this thread are more destructive to the conversation than constructive, thus my question to him. Doy.

Yeah, moral lessons can be nice. Doesn't mean everything has to have one. Sometimes you argue just because you think you're right, sometimes you argue because you're offended by someone else's position, sometimes you argue because someone else is arguing with you. Not every argument has to have a big moral lesson at the end of it.

However, for a person of your background, I assume the reason that everything has to have a moral lesson is a bit more straightforward, if somewhat mystical in nature.

The local chip shop doesn't open again until after May Day. Where's the moral lesson in that?

barracuda's stance does occasionally come across as something akin to "she's got an opinion! oh, isn't she cute!? oh, diddums! did the nasty man argue with you?". To me, anyway. Patronising. Knight in shining armour stuff. Paternalistic, in fact.

Bah. My position differs from your own, and I agree, on the whole, with the women on the thread. If you'd like to view that as patronising, go ahead - I've been called worse as a result of these discussions. As I recall, I argued in favor of your own particpation here some pages back. Who's your daddy?

It's not the agreement itself, more the manner in which it is expressed. You often come across as someone striding the savannah, cutting down rival alpha males.

[Stephen Morgan]

So the reason we have women's competitions in various sports is because women are at a physical disadvantage, in things like hand-eye co-ordination as much as strength, as in darts and snooker. High testosterone levels have a substantial upside.

Baloney. We've had this discussion before, and the fact remains that women are superior to men in a variety of physical tests, and that it is only a gender bias which renders male-centric competition the sobriquet of "athletics" while female-centric physical skills are called something else entirely.

You were wrong then and you're wrong now. Your position amounts to a rejection of competitive physical endeavour, rather than any belief that women can compete on equal terms, so it's not even relevant, as we're answering the "why is there a separate women's competition" question.

Looking at that thread, do you really think sport originates in battle simulations? I mean, golf? Snooker? Darts, maybe I'll give you darts. Even in ancient Greece the original Olympic event was the sprint, which is suicide in a set-piece battle. The great power in ancient athletics was Kroton, a peaceful place with little interest in warfare. The Spartans didn't do well at all, considering soldiering was their whole thing.

If Olympic hockey continues down the same path, though, we might see a shift in attitudes at least as far as women's hockey is concerned. They kicked ass & were so much more fun to watch than the men.

After hockey.. who knows? Basketball? Baseball? FOOTBALL?? A girl can dream..

Women's sports can be fun to watch, but that doesn't make them good. Female tennis is very popular. Female cricket often gets a mention on Test Match Special. But women can't compete in male teams. I've watched a few female football matches, the Cup Final is normally shown on the BBC, but it's not very good. Often entertaining, due to poor defending, much like watching non-League football, but slower.

[barracuda]

The local chip shop doesn't open again until after May Day. Where's the moral lesson in that?

If you're tending to equate a discussion of civil rights for women with your need for a timely fried potato, I can understand why you might be perceived as confused here. But I guess the moral lesson there might be something on the order of, "good things come to he who waits", or "longing makes the heart grow fonder", or some such blather. I don't know. I'm not an expert on the morality of salty British tasties. Perhaps you ought consult your handy bible for guidance on this one.

It's not the agreement itself, more the manner in which it is expressed. You often come across as someone striding the savannah, cutting down rival alpha males.

Not me. I crawl through the slime and the muck, hunting trolls.

[barracuda]

You were wrong then and you're wrong now.

No, I'm still right. Women can only be viewed as physically inferior to men in a setting which has been proscribed to favor the physical attributes of men. There are plenty of physical endeavors for which women are superior to and better suited to than men.

[Project Willow]

No, I provided my opinion on what I thought may have happened in the situation from the narrative provided by a woman.

And then completely ignored her and every other woman who said they didn't perceive what you were doing as such, and viewed it more negatively.

Labeling, denouncing and insulting is how you tell people they are inferior to you.

Like this for example:

Every example that has been brought to me as an example of misogynism that I have supposedly perpetuated has
been incredibly laughable. Because those people have been victims of misogynism in the past or continue to be
should not justify them accusing others when they have no evidence.

But let's be clear on the labeling charge, I have labeled your behavior misogynist. That is my great and terrible crime against humanity... and since I have at my complete disposal a culture, a government, a court system and a fully functioning military...

You seem to think you are not capable of causing suffering to others because you have suffered.
No one is free of that potentiality. Historically quite a few slaves went on to become slave owners.
Many survivors of the Holocaust settling in Israel have caused immense suffering to the Palestinians.

We've been over this already. The word you're looking for is Feminazi. Rush Limbaugh coined it, I believe, it's one of his favorites. But don't go off on what I seem to think because I'll tell you it exactly, again. I think that your behavior and approach in this thread has been misogynistic, thinking so and saying so hardly qualifies me as a fascist, or immediately grants me the powers of a dictator. There must be systems in place to carry out the nightmare you protest. Again, the current system supports the male view and male privilege, especially the views of ditto-heads and their masters in the corporotocracy. Obviously, the only power I have is to hurt your feelings by calling your behavior misogynistic. That you'd require my view be ignored in fear of some dystopian potentiality resulting from, GASP, people actually acting upon what I had to say, is (insert synonym #300 for unjust plus billshiate-pucky-filled plump-dogs on a rainy Saturday, here).

I just don't understand. What thread was it related to?

I'll be absolutely clear then: it's none of your damn business. Drop it.

[Project Willow]

[brekin]

brekin wrote:
No, I provided my opinion on what I thought may have happened in the situation from the narrative provided by a woman.

Project Willow wrote:
And then completely ignored her and every other woman who said they didn't perceive what you were doing as such, and viewed it more negatively.

Hardly. What, ignored both of them? She didn't want to hear what I had to say. And dug in because she thought any
consideration to the Furnace Man denied her what she felt in the encounter.

brekin wrote:
Labeling, denouncing and insulting is how you tell people they are inferior to you.

Project Willow wrote:
Like this for example:

brekin wrote:
Every example that has been brought to me as an example of misogynism that I have supposedly perpetuated has
been incredibly laughable. Because those people have been victims of misogynism in the past or continue to be
should not justify them accusing others when they have no evidence.

Tell me what labels, denunciations or insults are in the above? The "charges" against me of "negating women's experience", being
paternalistic, and denying women the right to name their own experience have been completely frivolous and laughable. If you want to
tie people's actions to their character and label them as such then that's all you. I try to avoid hanging labels on people, it usually kills the discussion.
And should I use "some" instead of "those"? Please tell me the grievous mistake in using "those" when I'm referring to individuals I have just mentioned.
And again the evidence against me (and even the Furnace man) has been so vague and pathetic it strains logic.

Project Willow wrote:

But let's be clear on the labeling charge, I have labeled your behavior misogynist. That is my great and terrible crime against humanity... and since I have at my complete disposal a culture, a government, a court system and a fully functioning military...

With equality comes accountability. For you it is no big thing to going around claiming people's behavior is misogynistic because they disagree with you or C_W and by some strange extrapolation all of women. I tend to realize making such claims aren't light and can have severe repercussions. For actual misogynistic behavior should carry severe repercussions. And what are you claiming, because you don't have access to greater powers (which you do, you can sue people,etc) your behavior is excusable? Or are you saying I (as a male) do have complete disposal the culture, government. Honestly I don't understand that last sentence.

brekin wrote:
You seem to think you are not capable of causing suffering to others because you have suffered.
No one is free of that potentiality. Historically quite a few slaves went on to become slave owners.
Many survivors of the Holocaust settling in Israel have caused immense suffering to the Palestinians.

Project Willow wrote:
We've been over this already. The word you're looking for is Feminazi. Rush Limbaugh coined it, I believe, it's one of his favorites. But don't go off on what I seem to think because I'll tell you it exactly, again. I think that your behavior and approach in this thread has been misogynistic, thinking so and saying so hardly qualifies me as a fascist, or immediately grants me the powers of a dictator. There must be systems in place to carry out the nightmare you protest. Again, the current system supports the male view and male privilege, especially the views of ditto-heads and their masters in the corporotocracy. Obviously, the only power I have is to hurt your feelings by calling your behavior misogynistic. That you'd require my view be ignored in fear of some dystopian potentiality resulting from, GASP, people actually acting upon what I had to say, is (insert synonym #300 for unjust plus billshiate-pucky-filled plump-dogs on a rainy Saturday, here).

Can you believe there are viewpoints beyond yours and Rush Limbaugh's? And fascism basically starts with squelching diversity of opinions?
Your rush to condemnation is pretty frightening. I fail to see how you can't see the power in that.

brekin wrote:
I just don't understand. What thread was it related to?

Project Willow wrote:
I'll be absolutely clear then: it's none of your damn business. Drop it.

Let me be clear as well. You called some people on the threads assholes.
It came right after I and barracuda posted in reply to you. You apologized to him.
That is one asshole. You didn't apologize to me. I like to know when people call me an asshole.
I believe I have a right to know if you called me one as well. If so, fine.
An apology would be nice. But regardless it comes done to accountability again.
I don't care what triggered it but whether it was addressed to me.

[Canadian_watcher]

Hardly. What, ignored both of them? She didn't want to hear what I had to say. And dug in because she thought any
consideration to the Furnace Man denied her what she felt in the encounter.

wrong - I read what you had to say and I responded. Here's what I said:

I don't buy it. I've been an employee and a small business owner and I have almost never been late. If I want a piss or a cup of coffee, or if I know it takes me ten minutes to get my truck ready, I budget time accordingly. This is not rocket science.

It is even possible to get up in time to make sure that one's children are feeling well and leave time to deal with it if they are not! (amazing, I know, but it's true!!)

With all that said, however -

THE POINT IS NOT that he was late. The point is how he reacted to the simple question; "Can you tell me why you were late?"

I didn't snark it at him. I was smiling. I was friendly. I was ready to accept any answer besides: "Because I couldn't give a shit about this job."

Think about it, if you showed up at work and your boss said, "Hey Bill, can you tell me why you were late today?" would you actually laugh in his face and say, "Seriously?"

would you?

More than that, if you were trying to grow your own business, would you think it prudent to laugh at your customers' concerns?

I mean really. This is basic human survival skills 101

You countered, but didn't bother to answer my last question, even. My next response to you was: "hey if you want to hire slackers for your home maintenance, go right ahead" .
THAT WAS on page 62.
You really ought to drop this whole idea that you've been mistreated because you disagreed. You've been getting angrier and angrier responses because you will not STOP repeating yourself, like some kind of broken parrot robot. You're digging in deeper. What is it that would make you able to just let this go? Please tell me.