Degrees of Misogyny

[Tiassa]

Mulberry Bush

​

Well I think it wrong to call anyone a term in hopes of dismissing their argument, its simply an Ad Hominem. "You say X is true, therefor you are Y!" Y being something we all agree is bad, but X is not proven to be untrue simply because someone may or may not be Y.

I noticed you left the part out about words that accurately describe behavior. Why did you do that?

Now if someone hates women, or wants women "back in the kitchen" or tied to beds, what ever, I think it is better to examine and dismantle their argument rather then simply call them a name. It allows one to better understand the opposite ideology and build better arguments against it.

Oh, that's why, because you need to stand up for bullies.

Still, though, applying your pretense to, say, this thread, just how many times do we need to hear the same arguments over and over and over again in order to better understand the ideology? All anyone gets is better insight into the cheap word games bigots like to play.

Meanwhile, the bigots get to keep on being bigots, and then what ... you're satisfied?

Pussy is equated with weakness, it has nothing to do with want or hate, imagine the word replaced with "flower", most people like flowers, but flowers are weak, easily crushed, to be equated with one, especially if your of the sex where strength and power is idealized, is an insult.

Dude, seriously, have you ever laid a woman? I mean, have you ever sunk to the hilt and driven with passion? Ever fuck the hell out of a woman?

That "pussy is equated with weakness" might well be true, but it is also counterintuitive given the pounding a pussy can take. That "pussy is equated with weakness" might well be true, but it is also a manifestation of misogyny.

"Misanthrope" is a title I accept with pride.

Taking pride in one's own lack of utility unto the species is its own question, and largely irrelevant.

Wait, if it is utter to boys who are being harassed and attack by girls, how is it misogyny? When I was a child I was often harassed by a girl in my swimming class, I was told by everyone "I bet she likes you", she hit me a few times too, not enough to cause injury though.

Well, in the first place, it is problematic to equate violence with love.

Looking at the results, women suffer the disparate impact.

Furthermore, such lines require gendertyping, which, again, inflicts disparate impact against women.

One bit of advice I'll happily offer is to simply remind that arguments depending on the notion of "all things being equal" sound a lot better when all things actually are equal. When they're not, all you accomplish by treating all things as equal is the redirection of a discussion into unreality.

I don't deny there is misogyny, just don't think that a good example. Raping or assaulting women for not covering up, cutting off clitorises, demanding life time servitude, sexual enslavement and no reproductive rights, are far better examples, and even then surprising Topsy-Turvy arguments can arise explaining it all as acts of female entitlement rather then oppression.

Yeah, you know, there is certainly merit in the fact that female genital mutilation is denounced in, say, American society, but I don't think it's a good example. See, the problem with that argument is akin to what Republicans recently tried to tell homosexuals about marriage equality: It could be worse, you could be in Iran.

And the thing about surprising topsy-turvy arguments about female entitlement is that they are only surprising if one doesn't expect them, and only present any conflict if one is stupid enough to give them credence.

And given how much of what men denounce as female privilege is, in fact, the result of misogyny in the first place, we do run into that weird problem by which we are supposed to feel sorry for people because they hurt themselves.

Just because male privilege exists doesn’t mean its counterpart, “female privilege,” is also present. Women in the United States and around the world continue to face discrimination in all magnitudes and have the system largely pitted against them ....

.... Intersectional feminism is the movement that incorporates the plights of people of all races, bodies, and abilities into the collective conversation on feminism – including men!

No one is saying that men aren’t suffering from systematic injustices against them. They most certainly are. In the examples listed above, there are instances were men are clearly disadvantaged.

The key, though, is that it is rarely, if ever, at the explicit expense of women.

On the other hand, women and their quality of life does suffer at the expense of male privilege.

And that’s the difference.

(Redkar↱)​

You know, if you're going to run with that stupid pretense about being nice to bullies, at least have the general decency to come up with something better than a rehash of what we've heard before.

That is to say, if you're going to pitch for political correctness to protect harmful people, at least put some damn effort into it.
____________________

Notes:

Redkar, Nikita. "7 Reasons People Argue That Female Privilege Exists – And Why They’re Mistaken". Everyday Feminism. 25 January 2016. EveryDayFeminism.com. 26 January 2016. http://bit.ly/1VmDJqY

 

[ElectricFetus]

I noticed you left the part out about words that accurately describe behavior. Why did you do that?

Because it is not conducive to productive discussion. Your not going to change the view points of someone that believes Jews are at the core of all the worlds problems by calling him an anti-semite or a nazi, you will only harden their emotional resolve, making logical deconstruction and self-review of their own arguments more difficult.

Oh, that's why, because you need to stand up for bullies.

When did I say that?

Still, though, applying your pretense to, say, this thread, just how many times do we need to hear the same arguments over and over and over again in order to better understand the ideology? All anyone gets is better insight into the cheap word games bigots like to play.

I would think this is an opportunity for insight for them, not ones self, but anything is possible.

Meanwhile, the bigots get to keep on being bigots, and then what ... you're satisfied?

Actually it is precisely your stratagy that keeps bigots, bigots, your provide no reason or means for them to move out of their position.

Dude, seriously, have you ever laid a woman? I mean, have you ever sunk to the hilt and driven with passion? Ever fuck the hell out of a woman?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe your attempting to shame my sexual prowess here. Because ofcourse the value of a man is how effectively he fucks.

That "pussy is equated with weakness" might well be true, but it is also counterintuitive given the pounding a pussy can take. That "pussy is equated with weakness" might well be true, but it is also a manifestation of misogyny.

A pussy takes pounding, a penis delivers it, one is not a proper man if one "takes a pounding" "like a pussy". I have no problem calling this misogyny, only examining the thought process of it.

Taking pride in one's own lack of utility unto the species is its own question, and largely irrelevant.

When did I say I take pride in "lack of utility unto the species"? I merely believe humans are animals, only occupationally capable of reason and logic over their impulsive instinctive behavior. What does that have to do with "lack of utility unto the species"?

Well, in the first place, it is problematic to equate violence with love.

I fail to see how that makes it gendered.

Looking at the results, women suffer the disparate impact.

I was told this, I'm not a women, so I failed to see the gendered disparate impact.

Furthermore, such lines require gendertyping, which, again, inflicts disparate impact against women.

Again since I was told this, I fail to see the gendertyping.

One bit of advice I'll happily offer is to simply remind that arguments depending on the notion of "all things being equal" sound a lot better when all things actually are equal. When they're not, all you accomplish by treating all things as equal is the redirection of a discussion into unreality.

Ahh but people disagree on what is reality! Leading to a endless pissing contest on "who has got it worse", I believe that if instead we agree to present solutions instead of endlessly organize problems based on subjective stance on which is worse, we could make more progress. For example, simply punish children for hitting each other, and do not make excuses for their actions.

Yeah, you know, there is certainly merit in the fact that female genital mutilation is denounced in, say, American society, but I don't think it's a good example. See, the problem with that argument is akin to what Republicans recently tried to tell homosexuals about marriage equality: It could be worse, you could be in Iran.

So? Just point out that has no relevance to the rights homosexuals should have.

And the thing about surprising topsy-turvy arguments about female entitlement is that they are only surprising if one doesn't expect them, and only present any conflict if one is stupid enough to give them credence.

Understanding other viewpoints is a exercise in stupidity? Simply to understand it does not mean one need agree with it.

And given how much of what men denounce as female privilege is, in fact, the result of misogyny in the first place, we do run into that weird problem by which we are supposed to feel sorry for people because they hurt themselves.

Just because male privilege exists doesn’t mean its counterpart, “female privilege,” is also present. Women in the United States and around the world continue to face discrimination in all magnitudes and have the system largely pitted against them ....

.... Intersectional feminism is the movement that incorporates the plights of people of all races, bodies, and abilities into the collective conversation on feminism – including men!

No one is saying that men aren’t suffering from systematic injustices against them. They most certainly are. In the examples listed above, there are instances were men are clearly disadvantaged.

The key, though, is that it is rarely, if ever, at the explicit expense of women.

On the other hand, women and their quality of life does suffer at the expense of male privilege.

And that’s the difference.

(Redkar↱)
​

​

So being told you need to fight and die for your country, except if your a women, sounds like it's a very explicit expense to women. Again all of this is frankly subjective. I failed to see the privilege in slaving for a family and wife, and fail to see the suffering of the housewife that does not mine the coal but instead gets to stay home and raise kids while her husband works and dies for her. One may argue she is devoid of choice in the matter, and I agree, but he is as well: he is obligated by society to work for her. Calling that a privilege for him, I see as subjective.

Intersectional feminism to me is like Ptolemaic model and adding more epicycles to it. It is based on the premise that women have it worse, rather then that some individuals have it better and some have it worse, so they added all these extras to try to account for it all, races, bodies and abilities, yet fail to identify the most powerful oppressor and giver of privilege in the world (money, control of resources) Worse of all Intersectional Feminism present few solutions, mainly complaints. Instead of demanding basic income guarantee, high taxes on the rich, free eduction, free healthcare, it just complains about micro-aggressions, office temperatures, the width of men's legs when sitting on subways, etc. Yes there are bigger issues, or worse issues as a republican might point out, but by paying attention to the small and subjective issues of trend and clickbait, attention is taken away from the big issues, playing into the republicans hands!

You know, if you're going to run with that stupid pretense about being nice to bullies, at least have the general decency to come up with something better than a rehash of what we've heard before. That is to say, if you're going to pitch for political correctness to protect harmful people, at least put some damn effort into it.

But I enjoy your cutting insults so! If you want the call people misogynist I'm not stopping you. I personally want a deeper understanding of what is going on and attempt to actually change minds. So by all means bully away.

 

[billvon]

And that's where OUR society resides--freedom of choice for all. Women have as much equality with men where the opportunities exist.

That is not true in a great many places. A recent example is a lawsuit against Chipotle, a company that fired three women for performance reasons, while men with worse performance reviews were kept. We are getting better about these equality problems, but we are not there yet.

As long as a person has the capacity, their options are plentiful.

Of course they are. But having "plentiful" options is not the same as having "equal" options. For example, a state that outlawed Roman Catholicism would run into First Amendment problems, even if they could claim that you had "plentiful" other options of which religion to worship.

 

[PhysBang]

orse of all Intersectional Feminism present few solutions, mainly complaints. Instead of demanding basic income guarantee, high taxes on the rich, free eduction, free healthcare, it just complains about micro-aggressions, office temperatures, the width of men's legs when sitting on subways, etc. Yes there are bigger issues, or worse issues as a republican might point out, but by paying attention to the small and subjective issues of trend and clickbait, attention is taken away from the big issues, playing into the republicans hands!

You are buying into the PR against feminism.

 

[iceaura]

Your not going to change the view points of someone that believes Jews are at the core of all the worlds problems by calling him an anti-semite or a nazi, you will only harden their emotional resolve, making logical deconstruction and self-review of their own arguments more difficult.

So? Psychotherapy for misogynists is not on the agenda here. The agenda is to discuss degrees of misogyny, as defined in the OP (just as one might have a thread for discussion of degrees of religious bigotry of one kind or another). To maybe learn something.

It is based on the premise that women have it worse, rather then that some individuals have it better and some have it worse,

That's not a premise, it's a conclusion backed by reason and observation.

so they added all these extras to try to account for it all, races, bodies and abilities, yet fail to identify the most powerful oppressor and giver of privilege in the world (money, control of resources)

So the most powerful oppressor and giver of privilege being largely in the possession of men and used by them to oppress women - which behavior they then justify retroactively by holding women in contempt and prejudicial disdain - carries no implications worthy of discussion?

 

[ElectricFetus]

So? Psychotherapy for misogynists is not on the agenda here. The agenda is to discuss degrees of misogyny, as defined in the OP (just as one might have a thread for discussion of degrees of religious bigotry of one kind or another).

Well then, degree of misogyny is a subjective and frankly useless measure.

That's not a premise, it's a conclusion backed by reason and observation.

No it is purely subjective, unless we can quantify pain and suffering. If we were to count deaths as a clear measure, I'm afraid men would win that one. Consider the recent attacks and kidnappings by boka haram of 100+ female students, most likely to be tortured and rape, what do you think they did with the male students? Look it up. Who are the majority victims of physical violence, of murder, who has traditionally be required to be drafted and die for the country, tribe, household?

So the most powerful oppressor and giver of privilege being largely in the possession of men and used by them to oppress women - which behavior they then justify retroactively by holding women in contempt and prejudicial disdain - carries no implications worthy of discussion?

You mean mostly men, and to oppress everyone. As for contempt and prejudicial disdain, traditional gender roles holds women to be treated like children and protected as such, I would not equate that with contempt and disdain, oppressive certainly, but women are not hated.

 

[iceaura]

Well then, degree of misogyny is a subjective and frankly useless measure.

But it is a useful and potentially quite informative topic for discussion - as your posts illustrate.

No it is purely subjective, unless we can quantify pain and suffering.

No parody possible.

You mean mostly men, and to oppress everyone.

I mean specifically men, to oppress specifically women.

As for contempt and prejudicial disdain, traditional gender roles holds women to be treated like children and protected as such, I would not equate that with contempt and disdain,

Then you need to get your head out of your ass. Treating an adult like a child, regarding them as childish, and preventing them from taking on the roles and resources of adulthood, is treating them with contempt and disdain.

 

[ElectricFetus]

But it is a useful and potentially quite informative topic for discussion - as your posts illustrate.

How so?

No parody possible.

Well if parody is not possible, can it be explained?

I mean specifically men, to oppress specifically women.

Well I mean everyone. Imagine for a moment all those rich men were replaced with rich women, would everyone else be better of? The answer is no: they would all still be poor and used, rule over by an oligarchy that can now call its self a matriarchy instead of a patriarchy, the rulers simply change gender.

Then you need to get your head out of your ass. Treating an adult like a child, regarding them as childish, and preventing them from taking on the roles and resources of adulthood, is treating them with contempt and disdain.

Excuse me but I'm not advocating traditionalism, merely explaining the thought process of it, so you don't need to be so insulting. Mind you women still got the resources of the adults (men) back then, in most traditionalist societies the women controls the finances. For example in japan to this day the husband gives his pay check to the wife, she gives him back an allowance or okozukai (おこずかい). In traditional English society all expenses of the wife got charged to the husband. Now that I think about I bet men did have contempt and disdain for their wives.

 

[Tiassa]

Part the First

Because it is not conducive to productive discussion.

Coddling bigotry is not conducive to productive discussion unless one seeks discussion in order to advocate and advance bigotry.

Your not going to change the view points of someone that believes Jews are at the core of all the worlds problems by calling him an anti-semite or a nazi, you will only harden their emotional resolve, making logical deconstruction and self-review of their own arguments more difficult.

Convincing the incorrigible isn't the point.

Meanwhile, coddling bigotry is not conducive to anything but the advocacy and advancement of bigotry.

When did I say that?

Here↑:

• "Now if someone hates women, or wants women "back in the kitchen" or tied to beds, what ever, I think it is better to examine and dismantle their argument rather then simply call them a name. It allows one to better understand the opposite ideology and build better arguments against it."​

And then again↑:

• "Because it is not conducive to productive discussion. Your not going to change the view points of someone that believes Jews are at the core of all the worlds problems by calling him an anti-semite or a nazi, you will only harden their emotional resolve, making logical deconstruction and self-review of their own arguments more difficult."​

A general challenge facing the discussion is the idea of a square-zero reset; that is to say, when dragging the discussion back to square one isn't satisfactory, one can always seek to undo progress preceding the point of dispute.

More particularly in your case, and also some other people: You appear to have chirped up without actually paying attention to the discussion. Your attempt to parse misogyny in order to reserve it to specific severe examples―

• "Now if someone hates women, or wants women "back in the kitchen" or tied to beds, what ever ...."

• "Raping or assaulting women for not covering up, cutting off clitorises, demanding life time servitude, sexual enslavement and no reproductive rights, are far better examples, and even then surprising Topsy-Turvy arguments can arise explaining it all as acts of female entitlement rather then oppression."​

―has already been done. And this is the thing: No matter how many times feminists and their allies try to explain the point, the next thing that happens is someone wanders into the discussion and wants to start the whole thing over.

And no matter how many times that happens, the expectation is that others should bend over backwards to accommodate the one.

And no, I'm sick of it. The disrespect, the big fuck you of someone wandering in and ignoring people's efforts, stands out after a while, and eventually becomes unavoidable.

So think of it this way: You're obsolete, by decades. And maybe we can spend God only knows how much time and effort trying to pamper your sorry ass back to sensibility, but even if we manage that, we will have had to start the same process over any number of times for other individuals who demand the same useless privilege you need.

No.

People should not have to put up with it.

So go back and read through this thread, and the arguments trying to redefine misogyny↑, citing historical misogyny↑ as an example of what isn't misogynistic under the new definition―no, really, there is an argument on the record asserting chivalry is "not born of dislike, contempt or prejudice"↑―or maybe the one about how a woman doesn't have the right↑ to leave the house without being sexually harassed. We've been through this already. But, no, apparently, as a courtesy to you―because that's what's really important, right?―we need to do it again?

Bullshit. How 'bout you catch up and then give it a go?

―End Part I―​

 

[Tiassa]

Part the Second

Here, a more blatant example; head over to the thread, "What is 'Rape Culture'?"↗ and attend the discussion:

(1) The topic post presents a pretense of ignorance about the meaning of the term "rape culture" and asks for explanations.

(2) Topic poster then starts setting up straw man (see #2, 3).

(3) Definition is offered, examples given. (#4)

(4) That post is dismissed; straw man deployed in full (#5↗):​

I believe we are entering a radical element with the "Rape Culture" rally call. It truly makes men, all men, look like savages by nature. It's an insult to our gender and to our culture. I don't buy into it. Nonetheless, thank you for citing your examples in contrast.​

(5) This portion of the dispute plays out over the course of a couple days; the topic poster reiterates straw man in #20↗―"Again, I don't believe that most men are sexual predators, and there is no Rape Culture."―reiterating that he isn't actually paying any attention to people's attempts to answer his inquiry.

(6) You'll even notice morale holds during this period, with people cracking crude jokes here and there. But guess what happens at #57↗? Another member checks in to reiterate the straw man: "The term 'Rape Culture' is a false flag easily recognized by simple, hey, wait a minute. Most men are not rapists and I dont support portraying them that way i.e. rape culture and I will ridicule attempts made to do so."​

(6a) You might notice the only people discussing such generalizations are the people who disdain the proposition of rape culture; this should not surprise anyone who actually pays attention to societal discourse.​

(7) This retelling can skip forward toward its intended point, but you might want to consider reading through that thread, anyway, because there is a lot going on. Because count it up; two days. Two days worth of people's discussion not worth considering in order to throw in a straw man that people have been addressing during that period. Still, though, the discussion continued, with much of it addressing the behavior of trolls going out of their way to disrupt the discussion, and then, a month and a half later, over five hundred fifty posts later ...

(8) ... here comes another (#630↗) reiteration of the straw man: "'Rape culture' is PC hyperbole. It's a good hashtag and rallying cry, but aside from its intended emotional effect, it's meaningless."​

(8a) It's worth noting that by this point in the discussion it seems quite apparent that rape culture itself is what defines most men as rapists, or however the straw man wants to complain; see #633↗ for an iteration of that point:​

We might observe yet again the correlation of misogyny with a dependence on a misandrist presumption of the incivility of males.

There is, after all, a curious rejection of the very notion of rape culture according to fallacy; while some will actually try to complain that rape culture "truly makes men, all men, look like savages by nature", or reject the notion because they "don't support portraying [men] that way", these are also the people who ignore the fact of Infinite Prevention Advice from the Guardians of Female Chastity, claim a male prerogative toward sexual harassment and belligerence, suggest a chimpanzee humping a toad to death explains rape behavior "better than culture" because it is "something we all have in common", and otherwise depend on the very generalizations they denounce in order to justify themselves.​

Or #637↗, which includes a reiteration:​

Those people reject the proposition of "rape culture" according to some fear of unfairly typing men, yet we see time and again that the misandrist typing of men as "savages by nature", &c., does not, in fact, come from feminists or analyses of rape culture but, quite apparently and repeatedly, from those who disdain the idea according to the straw man about stereotyping.

It isn't the proposition of rape culture that types men as rapists. Infinite Prevention Advocacy, male prerogative, man's inclination, the boys can't help but be distracted, and so on; these are all assertions against women, and in order to do it, the misogynists only need to indict all males. Bowser and Milkweed, for instance, are just really clumsy examples, but they are also quick distillations by which we can actually watch the transformation from complaining about stereotying men straight into actually stereotyping men. The larger societal manifestations are not particularly less simpleminded; they're just a bit more sublimated in their expressions.​

And I point to that thread because it includes the same manner of cycle, in which someone comes along and restates what has already been addressed without acknowledging the prior address of the point.

And no, people should not be obliged to go through the cycle all over just for you.

Furthermore, while this behavior is annoying to me personally, it is also dangerous. You want us to coddle this excrement? To reinforce the confidence of bullies? Why? Because you wish to nonsensically pretend that will somehow help incorrigible bigots decide to want to come 'round to bigotry? What part of history suggests that will actually work?

Then again, given your abysmal bit about intersectional feminism and the useless political appeal―appease the bullies or Republicans will win!―it would seem the answer is that it's not supposed to work.

Once again, women are expected to endure this excrement so men can feel more comfortable with their prerogative of treating women poorly.

PhysBang has a point; you seem to be buying into the hype. The alternative, of course, is that you're selling it.

But I enjoy your cutting insults so! If you want the call people misogynist I'm not stopping you. I personally want a deeper understanding of what is going on and attempt to actually change minds. So by all means bully away.

So far it seems you're trying to change minds to favor misogyny.

Sorry, dude, but accurate terms are not bullying, and your disgraceful pitch on behalf of misogynists will not find a happy home here.

―Fin―​

 

[ElectricFetus]

So far it seems you're trying to change minds to favor misogyny.

Sorry, dude, but accurate terms are not bullying, and your disgraceful pitch on behalf of misogynists will not find a happy home here.

I had a long reply but this ended it, look I came here for a calm and reasonable discussion, you were under no obligation or requirement to rehash anything to me, explain anything to me, especially if you felt it was beneath you or repetitive, but being accused of misogyny is not something I take lightly. Look lets not beat around the bush, if you want me to leave just say it.

 

[iceaura]

Well I mean everyone. Imagine for a moment all those rich men were replaced with rich women, would everyone else be better of? The answer is no: they would all still be poor and used, rule over by an oligarchy that can now call its self a matriarchy instead of a patriarchy, the rulers simply change gender.

Sure.

But we weren't discussing the plot of your next SF&Fantasy novel. We were talking about the current situation in the US and other places in the real world.

Excuse me but I'm not advocating traditionalism, merely explaining the thought process of it, - -

That's not true. You were explicitly claiming that you did not see misogyny in that obviously misogynistic "traditionalism". Which means that wherever your head is, visibility is poor.

Mind you women still got the resources of the adults (men) back then, in most traditionalist societies the women controls the finances. - -

Uh, no, that's ridiculous. Name a "traditionalist" society, for example, in which a husband required his wife's permission and signature to borrow money.

 

[Tiassa]

Two and a Half Parts

Click|Thrash​

I had a long reply but this ended it, look I came here for a calm and reasonable discussion, you were under no obligation or requirement to rehash anything to me, explain anything to me, especially if you felt it was beneath you or repetitive, but being accused of misogyny is not something I take lightly. Look lets not beat around the bush, if you want me to leave just say it.

I'll try this in two parts, and they're shorter than the last two parts.

(1) "Well I think it wrong to call anyone a term in hopes of dismissing their argument, its simply an Ad Hominem. 'You say X is true, therefor you are Y!' Y being something we all agree is bad, but X is not proven to be untrue simply because someone may or may not be Y." (#254↑) ― Setting aside the caricaturization (your caricature, your problem), the question remains: What does history say about coddling bigotry and how it works to curb or eliminate bigotry?

(2) "I had a long reply but this ended it, look I came here for a calm and reasonable discussion, you were under no obligation or requirement to rehash anything to me, explain anything to me, especially if you felt it was beneath you or repetitive, but being accused of misogyny is not something I take lightly. Look lets not beat around the bush, if you want me to leave just say it." (#271↑) ― My daughter? My mother? My longest friend? When their human rights must necessarily take a back seat to your pride? No, really, you tell me: Why? Or tell them. Or, more practically, tell the women in your own life that they shouldn't call out bigotry against women because ... why? It might make the bigot feel bad? Because it insults your pride?

Here, I'll add a third part:

(3) You know, I can't find the specific review from the specific year, but The Stranger holds an annual amateur pornography festival, and one of the female writers noted after one or another HUMP!, having never witnessed two men having sex with each other, the incredible durability of the rectum. You know, that strange realm between fascination and horror. I mention this to reiterate that while "pussy is equated with weakness" might well be true, that association is itself misogynistic. That is to say, it is an observable falsehood that inherently dengirates women. It's not that you're wrong in your assessment the the pejorative context of "pussy" sees weakness about female genitalia, but in the end, you're not really explaining the problem so much as simply reciting it. Misogyny includes ingrained prejudice against women; one of the interesting things about this discussion is how some people want to throw out the dictionary definition offered in the topic post in favor of a narrower definition that excludes a broad range of misogynistic behaviors.

The reason for this is obvious; it's essentially a mix of greed and pride. Read through this thread; you'll find Bowser being explicit in the topic post, explaining that for him, "a misogynist is someone who hates women"; then he offers a dictionary definition that doesn't include the word hate, and agrees with that. If you read through the controversy with DaveC, he also tries to parse out hatred, with the rest being some manner of neutral or perhaps even noble sexism. In the end, the problem becomes one of trying to discuss misogyny while reserving one's own behavior from such consideration. It could even be a Tea & Crumpet argument―"I don't, but I might want to someday!"―for all we know, unless they tell us. And in some cases they do. "Chivalry", for instance.

But have you ever watched or participated in vigorous heterosexual intercourse? I mean, sure, that's a rhetorical question, but my point is that anyone who has ought to be able to observe that "pussy" is not "weakness". Whether receiving a penis or dildo or fist, or giving birth, pussy is observably not weakness. And, you know, I'm pretty certain you can acknowledge that.

Pointing out that so many equate pussy with weakness is not in and of itself misogynistic. But I would point out that arguing "it has nothing to do with want or hate" specifically ignores the definition of misogyny. That is to say, it seems rather more difficult to say that "pussy is equated with weakness" is devoid of ingrained prejudice against women; after all, one is only constructing a pejorative around an observable falsehood orbiting woman. And though we obviously view women through differing lenses, and have some significant ontological disagreements, I would still generally expect you're capable of recognizing the ingrained prejudice about constructing a pejorative around an observable falsehood.

And that is an example of why I say that anybody who wants pussy ought to stop and think about why they want it the next time they decide to feminize a man as means of insult. The ingrained prejudice does, at some point, become hateful.

Really, even if the pejorative context of "pussy" was merely a word gay men use to describe a man who isn't sexually desirable, it would still be misogynistic; aside from jealousy, which itself is pretty stupid, we have no reason to hate or loathe women, or hold them in contempt.

But it's true, the idea of a heterosexual man who (ahem!) "isn't misogynistic" crafting or deploying pejoratives relying on observable falsehoods denigrating women pretty much makes the point about ingrained prejudice, or, as such, misogyny.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Sure.
But we weren't discussing the plot of your next SF&Fantasy novel. We were talking about the current situation in the US and other places in the real world.

And the current situation, being the rule of money, has nothing to do with gender.

That's not true. You were explicitly claiming that you did not see misogyny in that obviously misogynistic "traditionalism". Which means that wherever your head is, visibility is poor.

So how much virtue signalling do I need here? I do not support giving women any less rights then men. Women should have a right to abortions. Should not be circumcised, or have sex against their will. I did Peace Corps in which I helped women's groups in rural Africanas organize collectives and access to microloans... is that enough virtue?

I don't support traditionalism, anymore then I support drinking ones own piss as mouthwash, I just don't see some aspects of it as misogyny... yep I'm THAT evil!

Uh, no, that's ridiculous. Name a "traditionalist" society, for example, in which a husband required his wife's permission and signature to borrow money.

... was okozukai not good enough?

Tiassa,

Again should I leave or not, just say so.

 

[Tiassa]

So how much virtue signalling do I need here? I do not support giving women any less rights then men. Women should have a right to abortions. Should not be circumcised, or have sex against their will. I did Peace Corps in which I helped women's groups in rural Africanas organize collectives and access to microloans... is that enough virtue?

Do you acknowledge and affirm that, "Women are human beings and have human rights, full stop"?

 

[ElectricFetus]

Do you acknowledge and affirm that, "Women are human beings and have human rights, full stop"?

So that quote is not good enough for you, still not sure if my heart is black, my blood is made of motor oil?

Yes Women are human beings and have human rights, full stop.

Now am I human yet?

 

[exchemist]

So that quote is not good enough for you, still not sure if my heart is black, my blood is made of motor oil?

Yes Women are human beings and have human rights, full stop.

Now am I human yet?

You have an uphill struggle on your hands trying to get on-side with Tiassa on this issue. I don't think it is worth it. Sense of proportion went out of the window a long time ago.

 

[ElectricFetus]

You have an uphill struggle on your hands trying to get on-side with Tiassa on this issue. I don't think it is worth it. Sense of proportion went out of the window a long time ago.

Oh I learned that years ago, but I believe no matter how incredulous, reason and sympathy should be given. Apparently this means I cuddle bigots. Same thing I guess.

 

[Tiassa]

So that quote is not good enough for you, still not sure if my heart is black, my blood is made of motor oil?

Yes Women are human beings and have human rights, full stop.

Now am I human yet?

In order:

(1) Still about you, eh? That's the important thing, here?

(2) It's good to see that explicit acknowledgment; I wish I'd thought of that formulation a while back, when you were arguing against the human rights of woman.

(3) Always were.​

Meanwhile:

• What does history say about coddling bigotry and how it works to curb or eliminate bigotry?

• Why should anyone's human rights take a back seat to another person's pride?​

See, that's the thing. I get that any one person is or might be pissed off at me about this or that at any given time; what I don't understand is why that presents such a functional barrier to actually presenting an argument? You want to put my little bitch ass in its proper place, go ahead. But, you know, that's going to require having some sort of point other than your pride.

Meanwhile, your refusal to address the questions in order to focus on your pride only demands the focus be on your pride.

 

[ElectricFetus]

(1) Still about you, eh? That's the important thing, here?​

Well things seems to have gotten so personal, if someone comes at you with pitchforks and torches, survival of self is primary.

(2) It's good to see that explicit acknowledgment; I wish I'd thought of that formulation a while back, when you were arguing against the human rights of woman.

You mean the human rights of a corpse? Lets not, for another thread, another time. But yes if all that is required from you is that explicit acknowledgement of women's humanity and human rights to calm you by all means use it! Now that it is acknowledged perhaps then we can talk about the hypothetical, meta-physics and moral paradoxes without the assumption I want to dehumanize or degrade the rights of women floating around.

(3) Always were.

aaah, I feel all squishy inside.

• What does history say about coddling bigotry and how it works to curb or eliminate bigotry?​

See your assuming I'm cuddling bigots, I don't believe I am, so we need to first define how I am, and then define what cuddling bigots means in a historical sense. I would say in the present time though that letting bigots be in some circumstances is not only harmless, but trolling them is fun and can strengthen anti-bigotry sentiment. A reasoned argument against them followed by a banana dance, what is wrong with that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPgk0Hv-eTc

*coddling-cuddling same thing right?

• Why should anyone's human rights take a back seat to another person's pride?

I failed to see how to working reason into someone is putting someone elses human right to the "back seat". Also, pride, surely you have notice I have none?​

See, that's the thing. I get that any one person is or might be pissed off at me about this or that at any given time;

I'm piss off at you, not at all! I was thinking you were pissed off at me, what miscommunication!

what I don't understand is why that presents such a functional barrier to actually presenting an argument? You want to put my little bitch ass in its proper place, go ahead. But, you know, that's going to require having some sort of point other than your pride.

Well I really don't know what your "proper place" is, I think that is for one to determine for themselves.

Meanwhile, your refusal to address the questions in order to focus on your pride only demands the focus be on your pride.

I really fail to see how this is about my pride, if I had pride I would not be here now! That invitation is still up if you want me to leave, I can go, no pride to hurt.

But I have been reading, as you requested, and am formulating a theory on misogyny, and a test to see if it is true. This will take some time to complete though, several days, I got work, it is not a simple test either, many bells and whistles and doodads, it is no gom jabbar, more of a Voight-Kampff Test. So if you have patients? Also I need time to figure out the new forum format.