What constitutes Misogyny?

[charlie meadows]

it means joking. anything else?

No, I'm not joking. You clearly implied that you were motivated by obligation.

I am motivated otherwise.

If I were motivated by obligation, I wouldn't be interacting in this thread. As I am under no obligation to do so.

[Canadian_watcher]

it means joking. anything else?

No, I'm not joking. You clearly implied that you were motivated by obligation.

I am motivated otherwise.

If I were motivated by obligation, I wouldn't be interacting in this thread. As I am under no obligation to do so.

I believe it was Morgan who, in another thread, said that if you have right on your side you should ignore those who are making accusations against you, but if you do not have right on your side you should try and seize control of the narrative.

You are doing that. I'm not playing.

What say you to the other aspects of my post, wherein I call you a hypocrite and give my reasons?

[Canadian_watcher]

From Wallflower's link:

10 Things Men Can Do To Prevent Domestic and Sexual Violence

1. Acknowledge and understand how male dominance
and aspects of unhealthy manhood are at the foundation of
domestic and sexual violence.

2. Examine and challenge our individual beliefs and
the role that we play in supporting men who are abusive.

3. Recognize and stop colluding with other men by
getting out of our socially defined roles, and take a stance to
prevent domestic and sexual violence.

4. Remember that our silence is affirming. When we
choose not to speak out against domestic and sexual violence,
we are supporting it.

5. Educate and re-educate our sons and other young
men about our responsibility in preventing domestic and sexual
violence.

6."Break out of the man box"- Challenge traditional
images of manhood that stop us from actively taking a stand in
domestic and sexual violence prevention.

7. Accept and own our responsibility that domestic
and sexual violence will not end until men become part of the
solution to end it. We must take an active role in creating a
cultural and social shift that no longer tolerates violence and
discrimination against women and girls.

8. Stop supporting the notion that domestic and
sexual violence is due to mental illness, lack of anger
management skills, chemical dependency, stress, etc… Domestic
and sexual violence is rooted in male dominance and the
socialization of men.

9. Take responsibility for creating appropriate and
effective ways to educate and raise awareness about domestic
and sexual violence prevention.

10. Create responsible and accountable men's
initiatives in your community to support domestic and sexual
violence prevention.

[norton ash]

No one "on your side" (fuck, why?) took issue with his position. And now you expect to derail this discussion with some more hurt male feelings over ONE thing ONE person said which has, at this point, been discussed, and several people have stated their position on, including you????

You misunderstand. My answer to C2W was brief last night when she asked why I reacted to Cuda's statement the way I did, and I'm just trying to put across my mixed feelings on the matter. That maybe dodgy rhetoric is permissible in an emotional street fight, as much as it can bother and affect some of us. So I've come around on that matter, and decided to reflect on where rapists come from using the same harsh rhetorical device.

It has NOTHING to do with hurt male feelings. I'm just talking, and reconsidering the emotion and rhetoric at work in this thread.

I must have missed the rape-in-marriage question. Of course there can be rape in marriage... I'm not sure why the crime wouldn't be 'rape' instead of 'domestic assault' , but they're crimes, no question here. How our courts and society assess these crimes is generally really ugly, though.

So let's work on a more enlightened society.

(I'll confess to skimming through Morgan at times, but often stub my toe on wowzers like the one mentioned. Maybe it's because I assume they'll be well-refuted here.)

[Canadian_watcher]

You misunderstand. My answer to C2W was brief last night when she asked why I reacted to Cuda's statement the way I did, and I'm just trying to put across my mixed feelings on the matter. That maybe dodgy rhetoric is permissible in an emotional street fight, as much as it can bother and affect some of us. So I've come around on that matter, and decided to reflect on where rapists come from using the same harsh rhetorical device.

It has NOTHING to do with hurt male feelings. I'm just talking, and reconsidering the emotion and rhetoric at work in this thread.

I must have missed the rape-in-marriage question. Of course there can be rape in marriage... I'm not sure why the crime wouldn't be 'rape' instead of 'domestic assault' , but they're crimes, no question here. How our courts and society assess these crimes is generally really ugly, though.

So let's work on a more enlightened society.

okay.. I see it now. You'll have to forgive me but sometimes I don't know what to make of your posts.. That one came across as angry and seemed like you were rehashing the same old thing .. but I do get it now, I think. All of the things you listed were things that might contribute to violence in general, right?

[norton ash]

Fuck yeah. I went a little global/general on the whole thing, apologies if I was ambiguous.

[Feilan]

The culture proves to women who have been raped that a large majority of the rest of the men (particularly those with power) are willing and eager voyeurs. Rapist vs rape fan, if you like. Same thing if you ask me.

... ^ this.

It brings to mind one of the times I was assaulted at work (circa 1987). I was a dishwasher, dish-pit dweller, dish-pig - the lowest of the restaurant lowlies. At this particular place it was a particularly rough, heavy, sweaty, slimey job. I was almost the only female working in the kitchen, definitely the only female dish-pig I knew and absolutely the only female on the supper/evening shift.

Had I been the bolder-more-self-confident-short-skirt-wearing sort, I would have been serving tables for the incredibly juicy tips to be had there (it was a four star place with five star prices in a three horse town that generally fed bizness types and rich tourists), but i wasn't that sort. In those days, I was the fresh-outa-high-school-HAD-to-get out-from-under-the-parents-at-ANY-cost-no-money-for-uni-life-is-a-rented-room-and-a-minimum-wage-slag-gig sort.

It was the dead of winter, our dead season. Happily, a handful of fat cats who strapped on the feed bag and got their very expensive drink on could handily cover the wages for the kitchen staff that night - the line chef, two prep cooks and me. Fat cats notwithstanding - I was only on that night because the menfolk were also preparing for an industry show - a very big deal for aspiring chefs. It was good for the restaurant for them to do well - win an award maybe - so they were encouraged by the head chef to use the kitchen as a studio and play with their food. It was the dead season anyway so why not. I was there to do monkey prep and scrub pots, so that they could worry over their stuffed capons and scallop mousse sculptures.

... I was used to being treated a certain way by any of the men on staff at any time ... meaning, for example - a waiter waiting for show plates so he could reset tables might - after watching me for a minute like a wild dog watches free range chickens, suddenly sidle right up to my ear while I unloaded a dish rack and whisper a lot of really nasty shit about my underwear in my ear, take a step back, and then grin like the marquis de fucking sade at the profound discomfort and stunned stupid, wordless embarassment he'd generated. There were many, many variations on that theme that were a daily, inextricable part of the male dominated atmosphere. It was - as C2W was explaining so perfectly, normal. Even I understood it that way. It was not something to cause a fuss about or complain to anyone about. If you ( a 17/18 year old girlie ) were going to get along there, you'd better get used to it.

Economically speaking, I didn't have too many other options. I wasn't qualified to do much else. I needed to pay the rent, so I sucked it up.

That night though .... that night everybody went a lot further, including me. There was a jokey atmosphere that night. I recall wanting to be a part of it - like one of the gang, one of the 'guys' ...

One minute we were all laughing about something. The next minute the line chef had me pinned against the stainless steel prep table, fully intent on undoing my pants. I recall wondering how we all got to that *place* so suddenly. I noticed that the other two assholes I had only moments ago been thinking of as 'buddies' or 'older brothers' even ... were only slightly taken aback. I saw some kind of 'huh?' cross their faces and then it was gone, like a lone cloud skimming by overhead on a sunny day. Their split second 'huh?' was almost instantly erased with 'Oh yah! Sure!' and grins just like the one splitting the line chef's face in half like a gash while he held me there with his weight and went after the button of my pants with earnest intent. They laughed even, along with him. He was laughing. I'm pretty sure they thought I was supposed to be laughing too and that if there was anything wrong with the situation it was that I wasn't laughing.

"Hyuk!Hyuk! C'mon! We're just fucking around!"

All this happened in a blink or two ... then I pushed him off me with a similarly sudden, white hot fury, and I kicked that piece of shit so hard, I'd bet *all the money I don't have (a Saudi princely sum) he still feels it when it rains.

I screamed in his face: "DON'T you EVER FUCKING TOUCH ME AGAIN." He never did.

They all looked rather startled and he - really angry and sore, but afraid to do anything other than look like he could shrug it off and go check on something in the oven. I am not petite. I am 5' 11' and, when riled, I gather I look like a pretty scary bitch. Think Boadiceaa.

The one waiter on that night suddenly appeared and wanted to know "What?! What the fuck?" His whole table, our one and only table that night, heard me loud and clear. "Ask that asshole.", I said, pointing at the alpha asshole who wouldn't look anyone in the eye and had the distinct air of one who would have happily murdered me on the spot if he thought he could get away with it. That was that. Nothing else was said that night that I can recall, but the sense that I had spoiled everyone's fun filled the air like the stench of everything that rots and is considered so perfectly fucking normal, it's not worth mentioning ... according to most folks.

Go figure.

[charlie meadows]

it means joking. anything else?

No, I'm not joking. You clearly implied that you were motivated by obligation.

I am motivated otherwise.

If I were motivated by obligation, I wouldn't be interacting in this thread. As I am under no obligation to do so.

I believe it was Morgan who, in another thread, said that if you have right on your side you should ignore those who are making accusations against you, but if you do not have right on your side you should try and seize control of the narrative.

You are doing that. I'm not playing.

What say you to the other aspects of my post, wherein I call you a hypocrite and give my reasons?

second, don't' be such a hypocrite. See my post to Norton, above. It applies to you, brekin, WUaL, Searcher08, Saurian Tail, druff, Nordic, 82, Morgan and every other male who has posted nothing but hurt feelings on their own behalf without once stating that they oppose any of the outrageous things those of you in this group have said.

You have not hurt my feelings. You're dots on a screen a thousand miles away. Why you and others insist on expressions of sympathy, and even more bizarrely, apology from dots on the screen thousands of miles away is fascinating to me.

My comments have been of a different kind for the most part from your other interlocutors. You might revisit my posts to divine a context. Of course you are under no obligation to do so. My contribution, such as it is, is not that you are wrong--indeed, what you subsume under the rubric of Misogyny is pervasive to universal--but that your rhetoric is unsophisticated.

[Canadian_watcher]

it means joking. anything else?

No, I'm not joking. You clearly implied that you were motivated by obligation.

I am motivated otherwise.

If I were motivated by obligation, I wouldn't be interacting in this thread. As I am under no obligation to do so.

I believe it was Morgan who, in another thread, said that if you have right on your side you should ignore those who are making accusations against you, but if you do not have right on your side you should try and seize control of the narrative.

You are doing that. I'm not playing.

What say you to the other aspects of my post, wherein I call you a hypocrite and give my reasons?

second, don't' be such a hypocrite. See my post to Norton, above. It applies to you, brekin, WUaL, Searcher08, Saurian Tail, druff, Nordic, 82, Morgan and every other male who has posted nothing but hurt feelings on their own behalf without once stating that they oppose any of the outrageous things those of you in this group have said.

You have not hurt my feelings. You're dots on a screen a thousand miles away. Why you and others insist on expressions of sympathy, and even more bizarrely, apology from dots on the screen thousands of miles away is fascinating to me.

My comments have been of a different kind for the most part from your other interlocutors. You might revisit my posts to divine a context. Of course you are under no obligation to do so. My contribution, such as it is, is not that you are wrong--indeed, what you subsume under the rubric of Misogyny is pervasive to universal--but that your rhetoric is unsophisticated.

ignored.
Ii hope the mods see through you soon, you waste of skin.

[Canadian_watcher]

now that that's taken care of...

Feilan! What an experience! I wish that the collective female we couldn't so easily recall anywhere between one and one hundred such incidences from our personal lives. But we can. From the lewd leering stares in end of the line subway stations right on down to scenes from The Accused. We have these memories, and the lives we build off that collected knowing our place are much diminished for it.

Therefore all of humanity is diminished.

thank you for putting it out there.


edit.. oh darn.. here's the THIRD try to spell your screen name right!

[Stephen Morgan]

I believe it was Morgan who, in another thread, said that if you have right on your side you should ignore those who are making accusations against you, but if you do not have right on your side you should try and seize control of the narrative.

I can't even remember who that was about now, some bloke supposedly patronising prostitutes. Anyway, the point I was making was that he wasn't in the wrong. He must merely prevent his righteous, or at least harmless, actions from being portrayed otherwise by the press, the key to which is to act confidently and not ashamed of one's perverted dealings.

Norton,

Do you agree with Stephen that marital rape isn't really domestic assault? He defended that position way back in this thread.
No one "on your side" (fuck, why?) took issue with his position. And now you expect to derail this discussion with some more hurt male feelings over ONE thing ONE person said which has, at this point, been discussed, and several people have stated their position on, including you????

I must correct you again, I said that marital rape, before marital rape was a crime, could still have been prosecuted under laws against domestic assault. A woman couldn't have a man prosecuted for sex without consent because it was deemed that she had given consent at the time of marriage, however prosecutions for domestic assault were possible and therefore any marital rape which involved any amount of violence, which I would expect to constitute a majority, could be prosecuted for the violence and physical coercion and restraint, rather than the sex act.

Hence, my position is that marital rape, before it was marital rape, was domestic assault. Now it's marital rape, which is a separate crime.

god knows why should we have sides on this fundamental issue?

Because we've all said things which others have found offensive enough to place themselves in opposition to us. My disbelief in the prevalence of rape at the levels others have claimed has put me on the-side-that-isn't-theirs. Obviously barracuda and his guilt-by-associates have earned enmity with their blanket anti-male statements, and I'm not talking about calling men a bunch of fucking rapists, either. That's just a succinct summary of his general attitude which has filled lengthy posts.

[Canadian_watcher]

Because we've all said things which others have found offensive enough to place themselves in opposition to us.

there's a difference. Those of you complaining ad nauseum in myriad ways that men are being unfairly treated in this thread about women's issues - and there is a group of you who are so doing without making any other contribution except agitation - are aligned on a 'side' and that side has NOT ONCE spoken out against another member of that 'side' no matter what has been said - how offensive or wrong. None of 'that side' has said anything like,

"I can see how that would be a difficult position for women, and I'm interested to know more about..."
or
"Hey, I don't agree with <member of same 'side'>

ahh fuck it.
Ignored.

[Canadian_watcher]

Fuck yeah. I went a little global/general on the whole thing, apologies if I was ambiguous.

Thanks Norton.

[Searcher08]

first, don't ascribe motives to me. OBLIGATION? you're taking a piss, right?

second, don't' be such a hypocrite. See my post to Norton, above. It applies to you, brekin, WUaL, Searcher08, Saurian Tail, druff, Nordic, 82, Morgan and every other male who has posted nothing but hurt feelings on their own behalf without once stating that they oppose any of the outrageous things those of you in this group have said.

First, I would appreciate if you have anything to say to me, you say it to my face rather than as part of a 'distribution list'. Personally, I find doing stuff like that very divisive and categorising and just fucking rude. To use a 70s expression, please dont put me in a box. This is still an anti-fascist board. Thanks.

Second, folks who are having a go at charlie meadows way of expressing - puleez - there are a wide variety of modes of expression here at R.I. - it seems a shame that this cognitive monoculture is now even spreading to how people express?? Jesus, what next? The ban hammer for poor grammar and punctuation?

Third, I agree with the analysis regarding you attempting conflation in the manner described and I think it goes further than that.

I see two quite distinct modes of conversation being used, but using them quite interchangeably according to the situation. So when the subject is around 'experiences of women' you go down the route of validation as being crucial and with an emphasis of internal experience - what then happens is that there are times when this clashes dramatically with the argumentation approach.

What is happening is creating a communication loop:

Women need experience validated, express anger about lack of it ---------------V
Men challenged by expression, miss underlying feelings -------------------------V
Men dont understand reaction, increase question ---------------------------------V
Women's anger escalates as experiencing criticism on top of lack of empathy --V
Men get angry at women getting angry at them for asking questions ----------V

>goes to shirt<

Outcomes:
1 Women don't experience being heard or empathy, experience being attacked for just having an experience.
2 Men don't experience understanding the situation, experience being attacked for trying to understand.


The exchanges between Willow and myself and Willow and bph were examples of this.

However when it comes to the reverse, a similar thing happens.

There is an application of the type of empathy-less argumentation one appears so critical of, often descending into baiting.

Oh Waaaahh! De pore wee menz feelins is teh hurtz!!!


Meanwhile back at the communication loop...

Men need to experience validation, express feelings about lack of it ------------V
Women do not trust this expression, miss underlying intent-----------------------V
Men dont understand reaction, increase feeling output----------------------------V
Women's criticism escalates as experiencing unreasonable demand for empathy on top of lack of empathy for them -----------------------------------------------------V
Men close down at women getting angry at them for expressing need for empathy -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------V

Outcomes:
1 Men don't experience being heard or empathy, experience being attacked for just having an experience.
2 Women don't experience understanding the situation, experience being attacked for trying to understand.

RINSE
WASH
REPEAT

[Canadian_watcher]

Here they all come, eager to jump into a fight and NOT discuss misogyny.