Discourse Dilemma
Iceaura said:
... a discussion of degrees of misogyny as it, and they, exist within existing human cultures and societies.
—I—
I recall a round I had with one of my colleagues in a discussion about racism some years ago. When I used the phrase "background racism", a term akin to background radiation, he was most displeased; while this concept does not, in my opinion, indict any one individual, we ought not be surprised at the notion that many people still resent it and want to believe they are utterly, completely, and absolutely free of any racism about their perspective or character whatsoever.
Ingrained prejudice. The
quote from Emir Ali Khan↗ keeps finding its way into my discussions. But in that earlier post I also cracked a morbid line:
And no cop yet can explain why a white person pointing a gun at police is seen as less of a danger to life and limb than an unarmed black man. The problem is that the rest of us can't look at our minority neighbors suffering under our American scourge and tell them that this is the time, that this is when it finally breaks.
I should add to that at this point that I've had all of two qualifying conversations about the Snack Club Uprising with flesh and blood faces in my corner of the Universe―that would be excluding the one in which my daughter asked what was going on, I explained the situation to her, and she cracked a joke about Republicans along the way―and in both I found myself asking a version of that question:
Can anyone tell me why a white guy threatening and pointing a gun at you is less of a threat to life and limb than an unarmed black man?
Or borrowing from a post in
Politics↗, something goes here about how
part of the reason we saw these insurrectionists as harmless long enough for them to prove the point is that they weren't other people. Someone I know who thinks she's not racist, and I would generally agree, wondered what police should do, then, when they feel their life is in danger, but changed the subject when I asked the question of the white guy with the gun compared to the unarmed black man.
I would suggest that "background racism", as such―
ingrained prejudice, or,
prevailing ideologies that include certain capacities and positively exclude others―still haunts the human endeavor; in our own American society, the phenomenon is pretty apparent.
—II—
The analogy to misogyny seems obvious. Presuming according to the philosophical principle of charity, we absolutely must consider
degrees of misogyny; this also ought to be evident, perhaps, in how frequently one might observe someone disdaining the idea of their own misogyny while engaging in or promoting misogynistic beliefs or behaviors. Like "background racism", people really seem to resent the general propositions of prevailing ideologies in a society, or their according participation, if they don't like the perceived character of the prevailing ideology.
In the end, this is basic ego defense; that much is clear. Its downstream effects in any one life and perception are a separate question; inevitably, some will feel somehow legitimately alienated, but more and more it seems others will hide behind them; consider a couple of our neighbors who occasionally post what seem nearly delusional rants about political opposition, but feel somehow sleighted by the response that rejects them outright or otherwise fails to fall to its knees and offer praise for saving others from themselves. No, seriously, what do these propagandists expect?
But they merely provide contrast. Under the principle of charity in philosophical discourse, we must necessarily presume the outrage against the proposition of ingrained prejudice against women genuine―that the other really does have no idea what we mean―unless demonstrated otherwise. But what does the outrage even mean? What if it is based on elements like redefining words to suit one's needs, an appeal to inherent misogyny as noble, and even the proposition that a woman does not have the right to set foot outside her home and expect to not be sexually harassed?
All of this merely clouds the issue of degrees of misogyny. It is interesting―or, so says me―that one of the early pushes for redefinition fled what really does look like a textbook consideration of degrees of misogyny. To wit, a misogynistic gaffe occurs, but is
this offense
really and
genuinely sinister? In truth, the answer is only known specifically to the offender. Someday he might read the article the artist wrote, and recognize that
he is the one who asked those godawful questions; is he embarrassed by the gaffe, or angry that she dared criticize?
But it is easy enough to see how the moment is the product of history. So he just gaffed. So what? It happens, and it's everything else that becomes defining. Or maybe he happens to be a properly chauvinist pig. We're always supposed to show some mercy toward products of history, so right there is a basic stratification: to the one, unintended offense; to the other, intentional offense.
—III—
What do we make, though, of attempts to thread between those? This is where the redefinitions seem to come into play.
Start with a basic proposition from Know Nothingism; I've been using that line about how it's not a rape joke because it's a blonde joke, or a cop joke, or some such. Or we might consider that even though nobody can show us the historical transformation, an idea is suddenly something completely inexplicable except it's entirely different from what it's always been. Such strangeness is often difficult to measure, but one consistent aspect is that something is not prejudicial because the person who wants to believe or behave as such says so. To wit, if I proposed that selecting specifically for sex in pursuit of a reward has nothing to do with discrimination according to sex,
how, exactly, might I demonstrate that? The contradiction is self-evident, so there really is no demonstration or logical proof that a specific behavior inherently precludes itself; all I'm left with is because I say so.
The result of this construct in application is that not only is the misogynystic offense "unintended" and therefore innocent, the other offends by being offended.
The more complicated the explanation of a behavior, the more easily it is deflected according to this method. Like the idea of inherent misogyny being noble. That idea, by this method, is wrong because its key element, misogyny, doesn't exist in that context; after all, whatever the historical principle has been, it doesn't hold now, even though nobody can explain why, simply because one says so. Objectification isn't objectification, because one says so.
This is but one among many ways of ducking issues; it is also the running trend in this and other similar discussions. In the end, this approach intends to disrupt discussion of misogyny in its various forms or degrees of severity.
—IV—
The question arises at what point we are to start writing the arguments for other people. An illustration might easily be found in a disagreement 'twixt you and I about firearm violence and safety in our society. And perhaps you might look upon those concerned about domestic abusers and stalkers carrying guns as foul authoritarian gits, and I might accuse that you're willfully advocating for a more violent and dangerous society,
but at what point are we supposed to actually start writing one another's argument? At what point are you supposed to write the argument against firearm access for criminals among the most dangerous in our society? At what point am I supposed to write the argument about how important it is to keep these criminals armed?
Similarly, there are avenues for discussing degrees of misogyny; over the course of not quite a month, though, the most prominent response is to push the discussion away from its subject; those who most desperately seek refuge from the word "misogyny" are also driving the discussion away from such considerations.
Degrees of misogyny? It is hardly an irrational proposition. It would certainly be an interesting and enlightening discussion if undertaken earnestly. But look at how much we are expected to waste for those who need the discussion framed to erase those degrees by reserving the word to extraordinary character and circumstance. Meanwhile, the question very nearly asserts itself:
Certes, there is range for discussion of degrees of misogyny, but at what point do you or I, or Bells, or anyone else generally assembled on our side of the aisle need to start writing the opposing argument in order to proceed with that discussion?
—V—
Futility is one thing. Intentional futility even worse. There is a reason I prefer psychological explanations, that they somehow can't help themselves. After all, ignorance is one thing; wilful evil, such as actually calculating this manner of digression, is another: evil. The line 'twixt sinister and stupid is often difficult to discern, though in truth I use the word "stupid" for the zing. Functionally, it's more appropriately expressed as evil or ignorant, because the one requires the other, and not vice-versa. Either way it's tragic, but still, the need to write an opposing argument in order to have the discussion at all eventually becomes significant; perhaps the issue is not so complex as we feel obliged to pretend.