What constitutes Misogyny?

[barracuda]

Yeah, yeah. The record speaks for itself, which is lucky because no-one else is able to. Those who have eyes to see can see, what was going on then and what's going on now.

Dude, this is Jeff's board, not mine, and he made the call. I assume you have some degree of sympathy with his viewpoint, otherwise, why post on his board? But in a larger sense the forum also belongs to the people who frequent here, and a large part of the community of the members made it very clear that they felt offended. You think their offense was and is misplaced, but in the final analysis, the admin, someone I consider to be extremely fair and even-handed, disagreed with you. That's the record, bro. Show him some respect, if you find it necessary to focus whatever remnants of that sensibility you possess upon an individual rather than the group of your peers.

You do make a lot of thinly veiled threats though, barracuda. Not that I let it stop me posting the... er... you know... the things that I post. But I can see why it gets to people.

So what? Would you rather I jump out from behind a bush and say "boo"? I operate here as a mod, besides having my own rather strongly held opinions on just about every single thing discussed here. If you need to separate the two to maintain, go ahead. I don't feel that way.

[vanlose kid]

vanlose kid wrote:

just a note, but since you yourself qouted this:

brekin wrote:
... As Hannah Arendt said:

There are no dangerous thoughts; thinking itself is dangerous.

then you should know that in light of things like The Bananlity of Evil Arendt herself actually knew and showed that there is such a thing as non-thinking. i mean, the entire book is about it.

'

Yes, yes...and I'm sure you picked up in her other book the Origins of Totalitarianism that the lack of appreciation for diversity of opinion and
uniformity breeds non-thinking. I'm not Stephen Morgan's advocate here but whatever you want to claim he does seem to consider and
reason through his rational for things. As far as I know he has never been abusive to anyone and while some of his general claims may border
on the repugnant he is thinking differently from the status quo here, and there wouldn't be much of a discussion if he didn't. Remember Socrates was a bit of a pest to.

there's a status quo here?

never said anything about him being abusive? i just thought his ex-cathedra pronouncements nonsensical. and that after reading through reams and reams of his "reasoning". am i being abusive by saying this?

is there much of a discussion with SM?

edit: i may be wrong, but i find it hard to get from the facts he marshals to the "feminist reign of terror". now either i don't get his reasoning or there is none and that is what's being discussed, i.e. his view.

*

[brekin]

vanlose kid wrote:


Quote:
so i guess that since i don't consider SM's thoughts on the "feminist reign of terror" to be thinking i can safely deem it nonsense without fear of condemnation.

brekin wrote:
Friend, in my world you can think what ever you want! And I won't ever try to get you condemned.
But that's just me.

I would caution you though that once we start to dismiss other people's thoughts as "not thinking"
(compared to say sloppy thinking, or biased thinking) when we merely disagree with them, we can demean them as
a less rational being and then it is a small step to not extend to them the respect we all deserve.

For example, while I disagree with say Stephen or Hugh about their views on feminism or keyword high jacking
I would never assume they are not thinking. They both seem to spend a lot of time pain stakingly showing us
their thinking. I could say this or that point, or all of their theory, is faulty or not convincing to me but I
would never condemn it all outright because ultimately I can never know. Those who do though I find a little scary. As Orwell said
"The problem with the enlightened is they have no responsibility." Those who are convinced they have the
truth and a quick to condemn are the ones I fear.

compare2what wrote:

FFS. VK can condemn Stephen's thinking on its substance, if it's his considered opinion that it should be condemned on reasonable grounds. And he can also condemn Stephen, if it's his considered opinion that Stephen should be condemned on reasonable grounds. Those are two different things and should not be conflated, because one of them is not a thing but a person, to whom the greatest care and consideration are owed as a birthright.

I not only can and do but just did condemn Stephen's thinking several times in the course of one short post. I did not condemn Stephen. Stephen has the same rights I have, which he not only can but frequently does use to condemn my thinking. That's fair, afaic.

Do you have a problem with any of that, either on substance or wrt understanding it? And if so, what is it?

I'm not sure where you think I disagree. That is exactly what I was saying in my comment that you quoted.
I was cautioning him that if we think his views are non-thinking then it is easier to condemn him.
Which the threat of banning being a condemnation that had been put out earlier in the thread.
Obviously we don't have the power to ban him but a bunch of people dismissing his thinking
certainly helps.

brekin wrote:

Yes, yes...and I'm sure you picked up in her other book the Origins of Totalitarianism that the lack of appreciation for diversity of opinion and
uniformity breeds non-thinking. I'm not Stephen Morgan's advocate here but whatever you want to claim he does seem to consider and
reason through his rational for things. As far as I know he has never been abusive to anyone and while some of his general claims may border
on the repugnant he is thinking differently from the status quo here, and there wouldn't be much of a discussion if he didn't. Remember Socrates was a bit of a pest to.

vanlose kid wrote:

there's a status quo here?

Your joking right?

vanlose kid wrote:

never said anything about him being abusive? i just thought his ex-cathedra pronouncements nonsensical. and that after reading through reams and reams of his "reasoning". am i being abusive by saying this?

Totally your right to say you disagree with him and his views and not abusive at all.
I was saying I see no problem with him sharing his views (nonsensical as some find them)
as long as he isn't abusive in the way he shares them. This goes for everyone.
Relax, I can't ban you.

vanlose kid wrote:

is there much of a discussion with SM?
edit: i may be wrong, but i find it hard to get from the facts he marshals to the "feminist reign of terror". now either i don't get his reasoning or there is none and that is what's being discussed, i.e. his view.

I'll leave that for you two to work out. All I'm thumping for is that he be given a chance to continue
the discussion.

[Joe Hillshoist]

For example, while I disagree with say Stephen or Hugh about their views on feminism or keyword high jacking
I would never assume they are not thinking. They both seem to spend a lot of time pain stakingly showing us
their thinking.

Not me, pal. I should one of these days put together a single document about my views on feminism and post it somewhere other than here, but I've generally just objected to things other people have said here. I didn't come here expecting to talk about feminism, I came here expecting to talk about the things that originally brought me to the blog, like UFOs and James Randi's paedophilia, but I didn't know that there were people here who considered the ills of the world to be the result of patriarchy, as opposed to capitalism or corruption or organised crime or evil people conniving themselves into positions of power, which were all just seen as symptoms. I found that provocative and . Race faced, hard-headed little chap in the smilie, there. But if I can't even post that any of my past posts have been truthful for fear of vague allusions to forbidden areas, I shall have to refrain even from the more productive areas touched on by this thread, rather than being randomly swatted for some passing comment.

Stephen if you are gonna talk about peadophilia meaningfully then you should be aware that as a form of abuse its about power. Misogyny is also about power, as is feminism. And the "feminism" you object to.

That thing about violence, and the Krays fits in here, cos they were abused ie suffered violence and were powerless to stop it, and assumed that power comes from violence and went on to be among the most the violent and powrful people to come out of that East End criminal subculture. In fact that East End criminal subculture is a great example of the use of power thru violence and fear. All criminal subcultures that are successful are.

So maybe they turned to violence in an attempt to get power, but thats how they kept it, one of the reasons violence is how powerless people attempt to get power is that the two are pretty synonymous. Once you can do it (violence) you've got a bit (power), even if its just the power to stop other people being violent with you.

Now in our society the myth is that violence is something we give to the state, so it has a monopoly in return for an equal access to the states ability to dish it out. Then we have a whole series of up to 950 yr old traditions limiting and shifting that power from rule of kings to "law". IE language and symbols and stuff.

As part of the ongoing process of this leveling of power (well alleged leveling of power, while some things have changed many haven't,) the lack of power that women have had in our society has been undermined. Eventually to the point where women started demanding equality and a fair go.

Of course in this process there are going to be instances (which you always bring up) where the pendulum of power swings past a point of equality to one of inequality the other wasy. Sure it happens, especially wrt family law, custody, avos (apprehended violence orders) and the protection of victims of domestic violence. Maybe it has gone "too far" certainly past a point of equaslity, but you have to remember what it was like beforehand, and how the momentum required to force any change is going to take said change past some "ideal" point.

I have 2 male friends going thru custody disputes with their partners, I've mentioned them before.

Both have had AVOs taken out against them and both have serious custody issues.

One (lets call him animal, cos his nickname is something similar) had the avo taken out cos he deserved it, one (lets call him ghost for my own reasons,) didn't. Ghost is actually more of an animal than Animal.

G's ex partner took out an avo, and he dealt with the situation and maintained his cool. As a result, and cos he isn't violent with her, the cops and courts have a lot of sympathy for him and his position - but he's still at a massive disadvantage. He didn't deserve to go thru all the hassle and lawyers fees. One day while chatting about the system Ghost says words to the effect of "Its such a pain and so unfair. But I can see why it is and I don't think we should change it. Cos of idiots like Animal."

The 3 of us are good friends, and do trust each other. This situation is straining our friendship tho.

Animal hasn't been physically violent. But he has harrassed the crap out of his ex. 100 texts a day on a bad day, non stop abuse over the phone and other things. Not nice at all.

Ghost has suffered the same from his ex.

So its not about all men being evil. This situation is amazing imo - I am watching two sides of this debate play out in my friends lives. And its easy to see that even tho on the surface Animal's ex and Ghost are going thru the same thing its also easy to see that Ghost's ex's actions stem from mistrust and powerless and Animal's from being in a powerful position and being lazy and selfish.

So I blame Animal and men like him (and the ones who are for worse) for Ghosts situation. As much as I blame his G's ex, well more. So does G actually when he isn't immediately frustrated and angry about the situation.

This is one example thats happening to two of my close friends right now, but I've seen the same dynamic play out time and again.

BTW The 3 of us are males who are capable of being violent - we know how to fight, we don't have to consider where we go in public or what we wear or whatever for fear of assault. I've never felt that way in my adult life.


Now I'm not saying this to invalidate your pov Stephen, its just I don't think you are prepared to admit that is how it is alot of the time wrt to this supposed battle of the sexes.

I didn't know that there were people here who considered the ills of the world to be the result of patriarchy, as opposed to capitalism or corruption or organised crime or evil people conniving themselves into positions of power, which were all just seen as symptoms.

Thats not how it is, you're seeing the patriarchy as above those other things when it isn't. What it is tho is just as bad.

If we lived in a matriarchy that is as coercive as our current patriarchy then that would be as bad to. Tell me have you ever seen that 2 Ronnies thing about the worm that turned?

[wallflower]

Yow, I apologize for posting the DSK article here. I don't read all the threads here, but that I hadn't opened the long DSK thread before vanlose kid linked to it is very typical of a blind spot that I need to be more conscious of. I tend to ignore news about sex assaults, and other gruesome crimes especially which involve children. It doesn't seem that bad to avoid stuff that makes me feel sick, but it is bad when the pattern of avoidance erases all thought that really bad stuff happens. It's a hard line to walk and I think I err too much on the part of avoidance. Anyhow I should have checked to see if there was a thread ongoing where the link would have been more relevant. I will try to do better about checking in the future.

Urg, rather making my apology an example of the sort of apology one ought to avoid, I'll say that the incident and the attendant conversation about it has some relevance to this thread. My problem avoiding news that disturbs me is writ large in the ways that sexual assault is ignored in society. No way ought we ignore it.

Thank you Jack Riddler for filling in about how the film Hideous Men relates to the book. I had gleaned that the woman in the film was added to have someone in the film hear what the men had to say, but I was unclear about the woman in the film clip was in the book and in the movie the guy's girlfriend. It makes sense. A monologue is a very hard performance to pull off in a film. Julianne Nicholson's performance of silence was great. I kept trying to climb inside her head to imagine what her character was thinking.

[Canadian_watcher]

The conversation gets moved along for periods of time, and then we have to deal with more temper tantrums from posters who seem to need the attentions focussed solely on themselves.

We get to a point where people are roundly condemning the posters who are hateful and disruptive and lo and behold someone - c2w - comes along and pretty much advocates that we are wrong to do so. Why did you do that, c2w? Why do you encourage the narcissist to keep on pulling false 'facts' from his ass and posting them? Would you have defended the 'rights' of the posters on the Matthew Shepard memorial bulletin board? Would you have made sure that you said "It's their words, not the people themselves, that we should be finding offensive and posting our objections to." ?? Maybe some people don't want to have to digress into that area when the things being said are personally hurtful and more than personally hurtful they can be traumatizing..

But now look, this is the delight they feel. Divide and conquer - get them fighting amongst themselves. Feel free NOT to debate me on the above point or answer my questions - they're mostly rhetorical anyway.

And brekin - please tell me why you CANNOT stand it that this is a subject matter some of us want to discuss? And further, please search back and give me a couple of examples of this categorical denouncement of all males that is routinely happening here.

[Canadian_watcher]

Yow, I apologize for posting the DSK article here.

Urg, rather making my apology an example of the sort of apology one ought to avoid, I'll say that the incident and the attendant conversation about it has some relevance to this thread.

I completely agree that the DSK issue has relevance to this thread. Not only in the way that it seems to be an automatic reaction for (some) people to raise questions regarding the victim more so than the accused, but also because the system has clearly let this man get away with this over and over again only now deciding to make a federal case out of it because it suits the system's purposes.

The whole DSK history shows how women are used - whether consciously or not - as pawns for power. Were these other assaulted women just not worthy enough of the same public outrage? Of course they were, but the whole system is rotten - designed to make use of individual women and women as a group as tools to reinforce existing power roles wherever and whenever possible.

They do this to men, too, of course, but since we're discussing the particular place of women within this structure I'll leave it at that. As c2w has pointed out (and others) there are countless threads in General Discussion where the issue of men as pawns can be brought up and dissected.

[JackRiddler]

On points of substance, I find his positions to be hateful. I regard it as a categorical imperative to say as much and also to give my reasons for so doing. I think that's both fair in itself and compatible with fair standards for discourse generally.

Yes. So I did that too, for the nth time on the unmerry-go-round, and now I consider it to be enough.

Or I guess I could have just said:

Hateful views are not hate speech, in themselves. Freedom of expression can, should and actually has to allow for them on the most minimally acceptable terms possible in order to be meaningfully free. That's a fine line to walk, but the rewards are universal, so it's worth the effort.

That's all.

True enough. Did anything I say create the impression I would have thought otherwise? Then I'm sorry.

I'm not in a position to ban him, and would have trouble doing so for the same reason, but I am able to be done with him. I did find that the use of "batter" crossed a line from hateful views to abusive, hateful speech, and was a sign for me to call it done.

.

[Plutonia]

First inslallment:

Thanks lyrimal.
.
I am trying to invite people to think about misogyny in new ways, rather than demand that they see things my way. I mean, I really don't understand it myself, so I am learning as I'm going and don't actually know where I'm going to end up. I'm doing this because I really care about our predicament and I orient towards practical solutions and I don't see good outcomes from simply shaming men who haven't abused and raped women by lumping all of them in with those who have. In my experience, most men actually care about their wives, sisters, mothers and daughters.

Plutonia --

In one way or another, that must be at least the twelfth time that you've chosen to lead by distinguishing yourself as a woman who doescare about misogyny but doesn't shame and/or blame men for it, thereby shaming, blaming and scapegoating (by my rough estimate) EVERY WOMAN ON THIS THREAD AND EVERY WOMAN IN THE WORLD..

Sorry just feeling defensive I guess. It was not my intention to malign every single woman on the planet, I assure you. Sometimes I just say dumb things. Though I think 12 times is an exaggeration but I’m not going to go back and check so you can have that one.

Misogyny is societal, it has no gender. Furthermore, it has adverse consequences for all people, male and female, both directly and indirectly. No rational, non-sociopathic, well-intentioned and honest person who considered the matter for two consecutive seconds could possibly think otherwise.[/u]

Ah! We were in agreement there.
[/b]

But it should kind of go without saying that the most adverse direct consequences of society's fear and hatred of women accrue primarily to women. If you don't identify what they are and examine them, you can't even define the problem, let alone solve it.

I see the consequences as devastatingly universal, so I guess on that point we disagree. Identify, examine, define, solve- Yes!! Yes!! Yes!!

That's why we're not really talking about what constitutes misogyny anymore. I'm not complaining, btw. Nobody's perfect, and no gender is unilaterally at fault for the conflicts on this thread. By the same token, though, your implication -- ie, that women have been stubbornly insisting that we're not all in this together -- isn't really merited by the record, I don't think.

Much of the constructive dialogue of this thread has been tussling over what should or should not be included in the discussion with a lot of noise occluding the signal. Implication is a bit subjective, I’m quite sure that I never meant to imply any such thing.

I agree with you that we're all in this together and should all be sympathetic to one another's issues. You might not have even been finger-pointing, ftm. Could be that I'm just sensitive. [/b]

Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. I try not to point fingers. And again we agree.

(a) the number of women whom you feel it would be fair to say are posting to this thread for reasons other than that they really care about our predicament and are oriented towards practical solutions would have to be notably higher than zero in order for it a distinction worth mentioning;

That’s fair to say, though again, I never meant to imply that I thought that anyone was here for other reason’s than that they care.

(b) the number of women posting to this thread -- and/or just hanging around idly anywhere on planet fucking earth, if you want to expand the field a little bit -- whom you feel it would be fair to say "see good outcomes from simply shaming men who haven't abused and raped women by lumping all of them in with those who have" would have to be notably, demonstrably, and indisputably higher than zero in order for that not to be an ugly slur on the female character in general at best and misogyny at worst;

Now I’m starting to feel like a bad person. Is that what I said? If so, I apologize, very very sorry, if I gave that impression.

(c) you do the equivalent in every post you write; and

Ouch.

(d) those posts are very, very frequently bracketed by those of other female posters who are neither saying nor showing any sign whatsoever that in their collective experiences, most men actually care about despise their wives, sisters, mothers and daughters

Well, maybe it was implied then. Or maybe I’m sensitive. Well, I am actually

I'm serious, girlfriend. The next time you feel that good-hearted impulse to say, "Wait, don't blame him/her...," you might want to hold off on following it until you've had the chance to....Well, you know: Look around a little. See whether maybe anyone in the vicinity is being scapegoated. And if so, whom. Because people who really care about our predicament are too few and far between that we can afford for any of them to go astray following a good-hearted but utterly misguided and unexamined impulse. That's only fun until somebody gets hurt.

Note to self – “repress good-hearted impulse along with all the rest.”

You are using my words back at me in an unpleasant way. That’s negative mirroring. It hurts.

Please, I implore you, if you wish to continue to make the case that women and/or feminists are anything/everything you say/suggest that they are, take a moment to muster up some data -- or even just a quote from another poster to the thread! -- in support of what you're saying/suggesting. And if you can't do that, quit saying/suggesting it.

Hmmm… this seems like a cognitive trap. I wasn’t in fact making the case you have inferred, so me not mustering data to support it is moot.

When you punish, do so with regret, as in, "I'm really sorry I have to do this to you, but you need to pay for what you did,"

Oh my god. You should never even say that to another human being, let alone a child, ever. Do not act with calm and conscious punitive intent towards children, ever, under any circumstances.

rather than saying angrily, "You broke the rules! You have to pay the consequences!"

Neither the words "You have to pay the consequences!" nor the sentiment they express when meant as spoken have any proper place anywhere in the whole entire realm of human interpersonal interaction. Do not even think them.

Seriously. If you're truly incapable of conceiving of either that or the will-to-punishment-on-purpose thing as inherently emotionally disturbed, you really probably shouldn't be raising children at all.

I saw that and was wondering if anyone would point it out. As it happens, I agree with you and fortunately I don’t have any children subject to any kind of harmful anything.

Try your best to love yourself and others. Allowing others to love you is also a good idea. But if you can't handle it, it's not mandatory. Just go to a safe place and relax, it's all right. Just in the remote event that it's too late for you to reflect on the wisdom of those cautions in the fullness of time and arrange your affairs accordingly, though:

WTF? Arrange my affairs accordingly?! This is pretty much the sort of transgressive statement that would/should prompt a moderator to step in.

Do not tell a child toward whom you're intentionally acting punitively that you're sorry he or she forced you to hurt him or her, ffs. What kind of a monster are you, anyway? Please get a grip on yourself. You'd be better off angrily responding, "You broke the rules!" and apologizing for losing your temper later. That's obviously not, like, the aspirational ideal of childcare. But they and you are only human, after all. Just stay away from that wrathful-and-avenging god stuff, and I'm almost postive that you'll manage to muddle through somehow. I mean, that's what everybody else does, and we're all here. See? It'll be okay. You're fine. I promise.

I’m a monster? Are you talking to me or an imaginary readership of that article? If you are talking to me, thanks for the parenting tips, they are quite unnecessary.

This is absurd and unnecessary and wrong and hurtful. I haven’t subjected anyone on this thread to a personal attack, yet I have had to repeatedly defend myself from them, including by censoring myself as a pre-emptive measure.

If you meant to be addressing me, c2w?, I’d like an apology.

But I have different thoughts about this issue, not I think offensive ones, and I suppose I have no other forge to go to where I can pound them into shape. But in order for me to express my thoughts, I have had to be exceedingly careful in order to do so. I have had to be sort of superhumanly gracious. And Morgon too, I doubt would be here now except for his extraordinary implacability.

First of all, since we're all capable of speaking for ourselves here, including Stephen, and we're all responsible for what we say, including you, I'm not really sure what he or any of that whole crowd of defensive and offensive linemen you've got running hither and yon elsewhere in your post are doing there. But they seem to be obscuring your view of the state of play on the field if providing encapsulated summaries of their positions with respect to one another as you perceive them struck you as responsive to what I wrote. They're not. So I'm going to overlook them. [quote] See above.

[brekin]

Canadian Watcher wrote:

And brekin - please tell me why you CANNOT stand it that this is a subject matter some of us want to discuss? And further, please search back and give me a couple of examples of this categorical denouncement of all males that is routinely happening here.

The reverse is true. I want this to be discussed. The problem is a few people think they own this thread and if anyone disagrees with them
then they are accused of maligning a whole gender and that has a way of choking discussion. The thread is titled "What Constitutes Misogyny?"
It's a question open to discussion.

See I don't think anyone owns threads. I don't think threads should have special unwritten rules that only a few are responsible
for maintaining. I don't think anyone has the complete answer and would assume that is why they are posting on a forum.
I think disagreement is good and knowledge increases by debating and reasoning.
Accusation and banishment does the reverse even in the suppose ironic aim of teaching tolerance and openness.

And where did I say categorical denouncements of all males
is happening here? Really it seems it is usually just a denouncement of a male (and occasionally a female) who disagrees with you
and a few other self elected enlightened ones.

And please, when you address questions to me in the future quote any relevant statements of mine for context.

Thanks.

[Plutonia]

You're not under any obligation to be sort of superhumanly gracious. Therefore, you have not in fact "had to be' sort of superhumanly gracious. You either chose to be superhumanly gracious when you would both have preferred and were free to be ordinarily courteous -- or frankly hostile, or candidly contemptuous, or bawdily outspoken, or [whatever-ily whatever-you-tell-me-it's-your-repressed-personal-and-social truth-not-mine] -- or one or more people coerced you into being sort of superhumanly gracious by using occult tactics that only you and they are in a position to perceive.

Yes, I chose it in an attempt to avoid personal attacks and flame wars. It seemed like the most effective way to get to talking about something substantive.

If the former, you're just going to have to work that out with yourself. If the latter, while Jeff or one of the mods would probably be better equipped to protect you than I would, you can certainly PM me if you want to. I'll absolutely help you in any way that I can. And I'm not joking, even a little bit.

Well, I hope to have one or the other step in for me now. I probably won’t be pming you.

Likewise, as a matter of the same principle, if I've impinged on your freedom to express your different thoughts on this issue in any way that I don't know about -- ie, in some way other than legitimately disagreeing with them on stated grounds -- please tell me. Because I would want to stop doing that, pronto. Also, please feel free to address me in any terms that aren't actively prohibited, abusive or intentionally-punitive-for-sport. I might take it personally, because I am, after all, a person. I won't take it out on you personally, or even want to. That's a guarantee. I don't like abusing or punishing others. I do take requests, if I can understand them. I'm far from superhuman. If you cut me, I bleed. And all that stuff is beside the point, anyway. You got a right. Speak your mind.

Yes well you have just taken it out on me personally, haven’t you. Cuts, bleeding? I thought we were talking.

It would also be nice if you addressed the substance of the post in which I objected to your repeated unmerited and derogatory implications about me, female posters to this thread other than SLAD, unnamed "feminists," and women in general.

I hope I did that satisfactorily above- if it was received that way, it wasn’t intended but I’m sorry anyway.

Because I do have a problem with them. I've already stated it twice directly in plain terms, both graciously and then somewhat-less-graciously. I've also approached it quite a number of times indirectly, by pointing to some number less than the total sum of flat-out factual and logical fallacies on which your views were based. Amiably enough, at the very least, because that part is both spontaneous and genuine. And maybe even graciously, though I wouldn't be the best judge of my own graciousness, obviously.

But I'd be happy to state it again, if it's not getting through to you. As a matter of fact, if you want and/or need me to, I can even compile a comprehensive annotated list of examples and present them to you in itemized list form. Whatever you like, your response will be appreciated, no lie.

A list won’t be necessary. “ Flat-out factual and logical fallacies on which your views were based” doesn’t seem to be predicament unique to myself.

Oh and for what its worth it isn't women shaming every man on the planet by lumping them in with men who rape and pillage.

Its men. By their actions as rapists and pillagists.

Well, that it true Joe and I think men feel that deeply. That's my guess, but maybe you could maybe speak to that.

But I think I've been misunderstood, because I wasn't fingering women for shaming men, I was responding to barracuda and Jack, who seemed to be saying that in their experience men don't care about women (in rather shaming terms) and attributing universality to their experiences. So, I probably should have called them out by name, but I was in a hurry.

You've made the same suggestion -- ie, that men are being unfairly shamed -- in every post you've written. So "repeatedly" does seem like an accurate word, in this case. I pointed it out 32-plus pages ago, ffs. Sometimes you finger an ostensibly gender-neutral proxy -- ie, the media, the Werther Effect, the underrecognized-due-to-falseness equivalency of the rape-prevalence rate between male children and adult women -- but most of the time you stop just short of attributing explicit agency to the shamers and withdraw to a lofty position of vaguely stated personal distaste for the nominally divisive forces of feminism and identity politics. IIRC, you have not conceded that there's so much as one woman anywhere on earth who's ever been oppressed at any point in time or space with any very convincing degree of specificity, excluding yourself from time to time.

Hold on let me go get an aspirin….

Okay. Back.

It’s getting difficult for me to think straight at this point so I concede that I may be totally off the mark. Never-the-less, in order to defend myself from what I think you are saying, I’d have to go back and review 100 pages of posts and I don’t have time to do that. But let me parse this out so I can make sense of it:

“You've made the same suggestion -- ie, that men are being unfairly shamed -- in every post you've written.”
That’s an exaggeration.

“Sometimes you finger an ostensibly gender-neutral proxy -- ie, the media, the Werther Effect, the underrecognized-due-to-falseness equivalency of the rape-prevalence rate between male children and adult women”– Blaming things other than men? Yes I don’t think I have specifically blamed men.

"but most of the time you stop just short of attributing explicit agency to the shamers and withdraw to a lofty position of vaguely stated personal distaste for the nominally divisive forces of feminism and identity politics." That men are treated unfairly by people blaming/shaming them? I do think it’s better to differentiate the men who are to blame from the ones who aren’t. An analogous example would be to blame all non-native people all over the world for the harm done to Native people. It’s just not true.

you have not conceded that there's so much as one woman anywhere on earth who's ever been oppressed at any point in time or space with any very convincing degree of specificity, excluding yourself from time to time – I didn’t think that I needed to concede with convincing specificity that women are oppressed. I mean separate from any of us, because we all are. It’s a given

I also don't think you're in a tenable position wrt prevaricating about what you said or what you meant. Your implication is, was and always has been both clear and consistent.

Yes, I think I have been too.

Incidentally, as far as I've noticed, nobody has been discriminating against you for being a non-urban Canadian autie of Native descent, or even responding to you with any perceptible awareness of it. IIRC, the subject has arisen solely in the context of your clear implication that they have..

Well, there I go again, imputing you all with my implicit accusations of racism and a various other isms. I never felt discriminated against as a non-urban Canadian autie of Native descent, only as a person with unorthodox thinking.

[Plutonia]

Furthermore...

But, this is where the cultural differences might be coming into play. I don't say that as a fact, just asking a question- could it be?

Elaborating here:

Jeff has given us a rule to follow which I think usefully limits our discussion. Within that context, there is a moderating "dominant voice", if you will, that seeks to constrain the discussion further to within “acceptable” parameters.

Isn’t it possible that those parameters reflect an unacknowledged cultural bias?

At this point we are reduced to me, Morgan, Joe, C_W, c2w?, barracuda and Jack, as the dominant voices so I’ll just talk about us: Me and Morgan are weirdos, he a Yorkie (?) Xtian, me an autist so we are culturally distinct; C_W is Canadian; Joe is an Ozzie; and that leaves c2w?, barracuda and Jack, who I think are all urban American – is that right?

...while I do live in a city and am an American citizen, I didn't appreciate the implication that I was an obliviously privileged high-hatter the first time you clearly made it, back when I was being all elite and materialistic about poverty from my implicitly luxurious perch far, far above the world of soil and toil, which was also 30-plus pages ago. Because it's fucking insulting. It also happens to be totally undeserved and untrue in more ways than you could possibly want to know, which is a happy coincidence, since I definitely don't want to tell you about them. However, fwiw, life for me has never been any kind of fucking joyride. I do my crying in the rain. And I'd very much regard it as a favor if you didn't use the wiggle room that provides you to insinuate otherwise, Plu, for real. You have no idea. So have a heart, okay? Thanks.

For me urban American doesn’t connote privilege. In fact the image I get is ghetto. Suburban American, maybe. I’ve driven through American cities and they didn’t seem like perches of luxury to me. I probably have more luxury here with my view of the mountains and clean fishing rivers nearby. And I don’t know anyone whose life has been a joyride. “Joyride is a lie.” That’s joke on “cake is a lie”. At this point, I don’t have much of a heart left. Shredded.

You three actually have real power here, as social leaders at the very least; you seem to have shared values, and you are also a very formidable line-up. I’ll tell you that I find you intimidating singly, nevermind all together.

I have no power here other than the force of my arguments. None. I am not only not a social leader, I'm a heavily trolled, openly disliked, routinely attacked poster with a lot of enemies and absolutely no regular troops or allegiances of any kind.
I'm very fond of and respect quite a few posters and/or usernames on the board, including some of the trolls who fucking hate me. But I was quite frankly mystified by myriadsmallmeadowslet'sleaveitatthat's reference to my "friends." It's not like I have an entourage of them, even counting the imaginary ones. Take a moment to review the matter and I'm sure you'll see the truth of that. I believe that Jack and barracuda are generally well thought of, however. Perhaps not to the point that a reasonable person would be intimidated by it, but still. I will give you that much.

Why don’t I believe you? Oh right because of this:

When other posters come back to the forum with a new username, typically they let the board know that they used to post under another name, mentioning the previous username.

I've noticed that you have mentioned posting here under another name without including the previous name.

Like here:

Thanks Jack, I'm a long-time though inconsistent lurker/poster. I posted in the Pickton thread a while ago and had another nick before this one that I lost. I remember when you showed up, actually, 2008.

or here

About the other thing, I did because Annie encouraged me to, but I probably did it awkwardly. Anyway, that was out of character because I don't generally PM with people. And Jeff knows about my previous nick- I lost that one with an old hushmail account. So, it may seem ominous that I have a new nick, but it isn't.

As you are so keen on my encouragement, let me suggest you be more forthright about your previous identity on the board, and to grace compared2what? with the courtesy of a reply to her posts directed at you. Maybe not all at once, of course, but when you get the chance.

Do you ever get the feeling that you've been misunderstood? Because I do. In fact, I think I have been. Here. By you. And it never hurts to remind yourself that you're not alone, I find. When you're not.

It’s true that we are not alone.

_______________________________

That's the last of it, so now I can get back to work. Sorry everyone for dumping all this into the middle of your discussion.

c2w? you needn't reply. I've just landed a project that is going to keep me busy for a while but we can take his up again when I return if you like.

Whew. Pooped.

[Canadian_watcher]

Brekin,

thank you for saying that you believe this is a worthwhile topic for discussion. In the spirit of making a fresh start, I'll quote you back to you regarding my accusation that you have said that this thread has condemned all males, because maybe that wasn't you. I do apologize as well.

You know, I have to apologize. I may have confused your views with someone else's (I don't want to name him either because I could be wrong about him to.)
But since I don't have time to review everyone's posts in this thread I'll just say I'm not clear on your views and leave it at that.

[Plutonia]

Hi everybody,

I'm Plutonia, the poster formally known as susserer.

viewtopic.php?p=403069#p403069

[barracuda]

This is pretty much the sort of transgressive statement that would/should prompt a moderator to step in.

FWIW, I've been reading this thread pretty closely, Plutonia, and it didn't seem at the time that c2w's comments regarding Izzy Kalman were pointed at you as a personal reproach.