Degrees of Misogyny

[billvon]

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 . . . .

I suspect if:
-your opinions were regularly ignored
-your wishes were ignored
-you were told what to do and when to do it, upon threat of punishment
-you were not allowed to do most things because someone else decided you were incapable of doing them safely
-you were not allowed to vote, drive etc
-you were subjected to a wide range of indignities because "it's in your own best interest"
-you were not allowed privacy

you would consider that "being treated with contempt and disdain."

 

[ElectricFetus]

I suspect if:
-your opinions were regularly ignored
-your wishes were ignored
-you were told what to do and when to do it, upon threat of punishment
-you were not allowed to do most things because someone else decided you were incapable of doing them safely
-you were not allowed to vote, drive etc
-you were subjected to a wide range of indignities because "it's in your own best interest"
-you were not allowed privacy

you would consider that "being treated with contempt and disdain."

Is there anything there not applicable to children? Are children treated with contempt and disdain?

Well some people hate children, and some people hate women, so I guess sort of.

"Children are the future, that is why we got to stop them now!"

 

[billvon]

Is there anything there not applicable to children? Are children treated with contempt and disdain?

Nope. When you treat an adult like a child - that is where the "contempt and disdain" comes in.

Again, I am sure that if you were treated like a five year old - and had no choice but to submit - you would not be defending such a practice.

(Now it's past your bedtime! Go to bed before we take your computer away and ground you.)

 

[exchemist]

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.

OK good luck, I'll stay out.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Nope. When you treat an adult like a child - that is where the "contempt and disdain" comes in.

I think that is subjective. I don't see how the contempt and disdain comes in simply because of the age of an individual.

Again, I am sure that if you were treated like a five year old - and had no choice but to submit - you would not be defending such a practice.

Again with "defending", I'm explaining how it became, the motivations, the Nazis did not choose to kill Jews out of the blue, the Jews were a scapegoat derived from xenophobia and the poor financial markets which was blamed on Jewish bankers, which there were alot because for centuries jews were pushed into white collar work because the church did not grant them rights to farm land or many common professions, but did make them money lenders and tax collectors as the early church forbid Christians from loaning money, the common people resented this... yeah yeah you are going to say I'm defending the Nazis as well?

Have you lived in a developing country?, no welfare, no government, no police? I once saw an old women collecting sticks, and then the host's children come up to her and start beating her up, she screams and runs off and the children laugh, I ask my host what was all that about "Oh she is an old widow, she is crazy" I asked why his kids attacked her "She has no husband, killed him with juju, this is our land and she was taking our wood". Eating my meal was difficult after that point, but perhaps because it consisted of boiled caterpillars.

Life is poor, nasty, brutish and short, unless you live in a country of modern privilege. Traditionalism evolved out of that bestial existence. Many people if given the choice, which they were not, would choose to be some man's wife, provided for and protected, then live alone in that kind of environment.

(Now it's past your bedtime! Go to bed before we take your computer away and ground you.)

No fun sex for you.

 

[billvon]

I think that is subjective. I don't see how the contempt and disdain comes in simply because of the age of an individual.

As I said, I think you would find being treated like a five year old . . . unpleasant. You'd probably think you were being treated with contempt and disdain at the very leads. However, I also suspect that if you had a five year old, you would be wise enough to not let them drink whiskey, drive a car, smoke, be in places where they could be easily abducted without taking precautions etc.

So in the real world (as opposed to an Internet argument) I suspect you would understand how age comes into it.

Have you lived in a developing country?

Only for a month.

no welfare, no government, no police? I once saw an old women collecting sticks, and then the host's children come up to her and start beating her up, she screams and runs off and the children laugh, I ask my host what was all that about "Oh she is an old widow, she is crazy" I asked why his kids attacked her "She has no husband, killed him with juju, this is our land and she was taking our wood"

That wouldn't have happened in the village I stayed in, because people there were better to each other. But that's not a characteristic of a developing country; you see even more abysmal behavior on Black Friday when they first open the doors at the local Wal-Mart.

 

[Tiassa]

Part the First

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

Well, unless we're women. As I gather it from this and however many discussions we've attempted in this community about the human rights of woman, there are different customary rules in place for them.

As to you and me, I don't know, is it a macho thing? I don't do machismo very well.

However, I will note that as long as people insist on these discussions being egocentrically driven, all we're doing is prattling on about someone's egocentrism. Is there something about this notion that is diffcult for anyone to understand?

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!

See, it's when you try these tacks that you remind what this is about. Functionally―as in real function occurring in real life―it makes a huge difference.

To revisit the rights of a corpse and a couple other issues you chose to dabble in back then, at the very least for the length of this sentence, I would point out that the humanity and human rights of woman (full stop) makes a massive practical difference, even in addressing the abstractions of these issues, by setting the bar higher than mere aesthetics as justification for refusing the human rights of woman.

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.

Just so I understand how you're coming at this question: Is there no clue in our exchange so far that would illuminate this?

I only ask because I'm about to repeat myself.

"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."​

There are two problems here. First, accurate descriptions of behavior are not ad hominem, and I think you already know that. Second, you presume a very simplistic process. For instance, in the question of hitting on random women, we end up, earlier in this thread, with the assertion that simply by leaving the house a woman in principle makes herself available to be sexually harassed. This is inherently misogynistic.

I would also note that one need not "call anyone a term" in order to offend their delicate sensibilities. As you read through this thread, for instance, notice how many people need to change a proposition in order to denounce it. Some are offended long before anyone deploys any particular term against them. I think the colloquial response to such pretenses of offense goes, approximately, "Struck a nerve, there, eh?"

But in that paragraph, you're coddling misogyny and misogynists by the pretense that if someone does not like an accurate term describing their behavior, that term becomes a fallacious insult. Racism is racism. Misogyny is misogyny. Bigotry is bigotry.

In American history, we have made some pretty strong advances against bigotry, and there is a lot of work left to be done. But let us take racism as an example. Being called a racist, and recognizing that the term is not one of honor, upsets racists. It will, as you put assert, "only harden their emotional resolve".

Very well. If nobody called out racism because it would be better to not upset racists and harden their emotional resolve, just how would we have made what progress we have?

Between 1962 and 1993, for instance, feminists and other civil rights allies upset the hell out of misogynists. I note these dates because that span represents the beginning of the Sexual Revolution and the last American state striking its marital rape exemption. If nobody called out misogyny and rape, you know, because it would make the misogynists and rapists uncomfortable and only harden their emotional resolve, how much more progress do you think the human rights of woman would have accomplished in our society? Would you assert that if nobody said anything about misogyny and rape during those decadess, we not only would have struck the rape exemptions sooner, but also would have seen fewer states reserve those rapes to lesser charges?

What is the historical precedent for the principle that accommodating injustice compels justice? When has that ever worked?

I would say in the present time though that letting bigots be in some circumstances is not only harmless ...

I'm parsing this fragment specifically to remind that you're risking that pretense of harmlessness against real and genuine harm.

Toward that point, I would ask you to review:

• "Degrees of Misogyny" #87↑

• "Degrees of Misogyny" #90↑

• "What is 'Rape Culture'?" #679↗​

The first (#87) includes a sentence that reads, "Yeah, it's not her job"; that is to say, it's not her job to be whatever a guy hitting on a woman wants her to be. I have a more explicitly detailed blog version↱ that focuses on a different iteration of objectification, but the point remains pretty much the same:

Because it’s none of your business. You don’t know what kind of day she is having, either, and it’s none of your fucking business. She doesn’t need a reason, dude. Really, man, if the “reason” she is not smiling is because she happens to not, at this moment, be smiling, it’s still not your fucking business. Because you need to understand that you just don’t look very nice when you’re standing there like a dick telling her to smile. And you know how you’d be more attractive, dude? If you were somewhere else.​

The second (#90) includes an attempt to defend "chivalry":

It would be great if a flag went up worldwide that said 'now it is time to socialize' but that's not reality. People looking to make friends or more with another person is part of society. No one who steps into a public place has the right to say "I never want to be seen as approachable." They do have the right to say "I do not wish to be approached now. Go away." or "You should know that this is a place where it is not appropriate (perhaps, the workplace)."​

So here we have two contrasting arguments. To the one, it's not her job to smile for a man; to the other, she doesn't have the right to leave the house with the expectation of not being treated that way; after all, she can just tell him no.

The third, #679 from the "What is 'Rape Culture'?" thread, reminds how this can go.

Thus, we come back 'round to that fragment: There are certainly times when it seems proximally harmless to leave the bigot be, but whose life are you or I willing to trade out for that?

I just don't see any substantial benefit in the proposition of harmlessness.

... 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?

Remember that bit just a few posts ago about square zero↗?

And in the second part↗ I recounted the rape culture thread?

Would you please review a brief post, #253↗, from that thread?

Something about a reasoned argument goes here. But how to put it? Perhaps I might suggest you err in presuming reasoned argument has any substantial effect.

Which in turn brings us back to the proposition of having to start the whole cycle over for the next person in line. The cumulative effect of dancing through that cycle over and over again is constant distraction from the actual, living, functional issue.

The difference between principle and practice seems quite relevant here; sure, reasoned argument followed by rhetorical escalation might sound useful, but that presumes reasoned argument has any effect. For instance, sometimes trying to be reasonable↗, even when you can see the punch line coming, simply gets one dismissed in favor of a straw man↗. (Either link will do; they're consecutive posts.)

*coddling-cuddling same thing right?

Not quite, but I wasn't going to make a point of it.

I failed to see how to working reason into someone is putting someone elses human right to the "back seat".

I would contest that statement as inaccurately founded. Please see point (2) in #273↑ above, which responds to your argument―

"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."​

―from #271↑ above.

Also, pride, surely you have notice I have none?

"Pride"↑? Are you sure the word you're looking for isn't "shame"?

―End Part I―​

 

[Tiassa]

Part the Second

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

Well, yeah, I kind of was.

It's kind of like the thread we're aiming to not rehash; the thing is that I already know you're smarter than some of the stuff you say. Back then, your variation reminded me, among other things, of the notion of "question everything" gone awry. Toward which I should probably make two points:

• While ontology is not static, neither is it arbitrary; that was part of our dispute, then. It's one thing to question or challenge ontology, quite another to do so as an arbitrary proposition.

• We might also consider history. Let's try chivalry, an issue that arose earlier in this thread. To challenge the context of something is one thing, but what if that challenge is not so much arbitrary as subject to vested interest?​

↳ e.g., One might certainly challenge an historical context, but how is that challenge structured? Because one says so? And that's where the argumentative problem arises, as it did in this thread. If we have a longstanding, unbroken tradition, then does ignorance of the specific history mean the tradition is not in effect? Less abstractly: If I teach my daughter a bad idea, and she teaches her ... son? ... the same bad idea, and he teaches his children the same bad idea, perhaps it is true that the offspring are ignorant of the history of that bad idea; does that ignorance mean the bad idea isn't a bad idea? More specifically: If one is ignorant of the misogynistic history of chivalry, do those aspects of chivalry suddenly stop being misogynistic? And while you or I or the next guy on the barstool might have our opinions, what about the people subject to the bad idea?​

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

It's one thing if I pissed you off, and what, really, would you expect me to think of your response in #271?

I'm aware I piss people off sometimes; I even pause on some occasions to consider whether it's worth it. The thing is, look at that post; it's about you and me, and exhibits a particular device that I see, well, regularly enough to recognize certain patterns. And, yeah, knowing what I know of the character you present here, I'm pretty certain you would disdain the actual comparison that occurred in this thread. But it's true I am not unacquainted with variations on, "Well, I was, but fine, that rips it, and now I'm not!" The thing is that one can still scorch the other in the course of reasoned argument.

And, by the way, your formulation on this occasion tips to the fact of your response method, which in turn suggests myriad opportunities for contextual distortion. Not that you're unique in that way―replying portion by portion without having considered the whole of the post―but every once in a while those practices come back to bite us. Here's a fun quandary: If I explicitly note that includes me, is that helpful for clarifying what I mean by "us", or insulting for presuming you couldn't figure that out? It actually does come up in striking ways sometimes, though this isn't one of those. But it's true, I catch myself doing it sometimes; too often, to be honest. And it can create or contribute to severe contextual distortions.

But on that, I digress; the point about my proper place had to do not so much with your tone but the absence―or, in this case, refusal―of anything other than interpersonal conflict.

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.

And as I read it, that's another example. It's not about you staying or leaving. Insofar as how this is about your pride, check your responses at #271↑, 274↑, and 276↑.

In that last, at least, there was a sentence on topic, but what, for instance, would you think would be a reasoned argument that if it isn't about your pride then stop going on about yourself and get back to the topic at hand?

And that's the thing. To the one, I would rather just get on with the discussion; to the other, it is problematic to go forward with certain aspects unresolved. These two posts will run nearly 2,800 words, with about a third, including the entire second portion generally given to our interpersonal dispute. And, honestly, if I just ignore those parts and keep going forward with the discusion of misogyny, it seems unlikely you would feel any better about the way our exchange is going, because as you have quite clearly figured out, I'm not in much of a mood for compromise when that compromise includes empowering bigotry.

I mean, you can actually find a post earlier in this thread in which someone asks if we can just agree with him so we can all move on with the thread.

And, you know, here's the thing about empowering bigotry: It is what it is, and we all do it sometimes, regardless of our intent. What happens next is, in many or even most cases, more important and defining than the gaffe, error, or whatever we might call it in defense of one's relative general innocence.

―Fin―​

 

[iceaura]

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

The current situation with money is dominated by gender issues, and vice versa. To the detriment of women. It's a key factor, and it has significant roots in misogyny and a very significant role in the enactment of misogynistic agendas.

... was okozukai not good enough?

Not even close. Your contention, which was bizarre, was that in most traditionalist societies women controlled the money. The money - so these are traditionalist societies in the modern world. So we are to imagine a traditionalist society featuring a banking and moneylending system run by women, the large borrowers and investors mostly women, etc. How much of your worldview is based on sheer social and historical and geopolitical fantasy like that?

Example: When the Brits conquered the Scottish Picts, finally, they undertook the governance of a society in which domestic wealth was owned by women - the house, the cattle, the stuff. It was inherited by daughters from their mothers. There are other societies that worked like that, for reasons much studied and fairly clearly explicated over the years, but they are unusual - and in this case the Brits simply abolished that; disowned all the women, handed their wealth to the nearest adult man, established inheritance from "father" to eldest son. And that is the system the English speaking world started out with. That - primogeniture - is the basis of the traditional societies of the English speaking world.

Why did they do that?

*coddling-cuddling same thing right?

No.

without the assumption I want to dehumanize or degrade the rights of women floating around.

What you want to do is largely irrelevant. What you think you want to do is completely irrelevant.

 

[ElectricFetus]

In American history, we have made some pretty strong advances against bigotry, and there is a lot of work left to be done. But let us take racism as an example. Being called a racist, and recognizing that the term is not one of honor, upsets racists. It will, as you put assert, "only harden their emotional resolve".

Very well. If nobody called out racism because it would be better to not upset racists and harden their emotional resolve, just how would we have made what progress we have?

I'm not going to reply to every part, you know that, I can't. But perhaps you have a different view of history then I do, see a different present and have a different outlook on the future. If the goal is to turn bigots around, then calling them words, accurate or not, is not helpful, if the goal is social control outside the law, to shame into silence and inaction, by all means call them what ever you want, I can't stop you, you would burn me on a stake if I tired, but at least heed this warning: be aware of it backfiring. The word reaches a maximum effectiveness, then eventually people get use to hearing it used too often for too many thing, worse the misogynist or racist becomes accustom to it, eventually disregarding it completely, the word now directly stimulates a thought that they must be right, not shame, not fear, not redress, then something truly nightmarish happens, some egomaniac comes in, and openly accepts the word "We need to kick out all the Mexicans, they are rapist and thugs" "racist! racist!" "hahaha they can't handle the truth, kick em out, you're fired, loser!, loser!" or "Yeah I would fuck my daughter, oh and that reporter, she has got blood coming out of holes in her body", "Misogynist! Misogynist!", "Oh please the bitch had it coming, and my daughter, come on you would fuck her if you could!" and then the racists/misogynist realize they don't need to hid anymore, for they were hiding all this time, never actually converted by the word. Embolden they openly spew forth, and every call of them as what they are now strengthen them, normal people so tired of hearing the word, so tired of any accusation of the word for the slightest transgression of mind, also decide to rally behind a pathological monster. All your accomplishments, supposedly brought about by the word, burns as the fuhrer laughs, then straightens the furry mass of WHAT EVER THE FUCK THAT THING IS ON HIS HEAD!

Sure this is only a possible future, perhaps I'm pessimistic, perhaps I'm seeing signs of a sea change to hell in the smoke.

Very well. If nobody called out racism because it would be better to not upset racists and harden their emotional resolve, just how would we have made what progress we have?

The progress that we had came about through redress of the law "Here is the problem, here is how to fix it, petition, petition, vote, vote" there were protests, sit-in, there was physical and tangible action, the word, the word did nothing.

But on that, I digress; the point about my proper place had to do not so much with your tone but the absence―or, in this case, refusal―of anything other than interpersonal conflict.

and I'm preparing for a return to the subject at hand, but going to need to give me a several days, this theory is rather problematic in that it could illicit an emotional response akin to a compulsive urge to eat off my fingers, ripe out my lips and tongue and bite off my genitals to a stub. So alot of time must be spent trying to create arguments that alleviate and prevent such emotions. Now if you feel you don't want to risk such emotions, by all means let us leave it at Women are human beings and have human rights, full stop. no no "buts" are coming to that statement, I believe it fully, the problem is that what I say about the misogyny may cause you at a emotional level to not believe me, to in a righteous fury demand my punishment for any transgression so perceived despite my full and honest advocation of human rights for all. And no it is not a hypothetical, it is a civil rights issue rarely addressed, though it has won favor in a few places in the world. And brought in the right context may prove or disprove my theory on the word misogyny and degrees of it.

As I said, I think you would find being treated like a five year old . . . unpleasant. You'd probably think you were being treated with contempt and disdain at the very leads. However, I also suspect that if you had a five year old, you would be wise enough to not let them drink whiskey, drive a car, smoke, be in places where they could be easily abducted without taking precautions etc. So in the real world (as opposed to an Internet argument) I suspect you would understand how age comes into it.

You do realize that some societies in fact think it unwise to let women drink, drive, smoke, or not be protect, quite possible because in their society it is unwise. Of course their solution to protect the women, does no address the cause of why they would need make such decision. Now imagine we lived in a world where each one of us was minded by a robot from birth, the cars drive themselves, and any action we take is judged and gently directed for are own good, then what need would there by to give children reduced rights, parents and guardians as simply traditional, archaic, oppressive concepts, everyone from birth to death has the same rights. What I'm getting at is morality is created to deal with problems we have, very different moralities are created because of very different problems and solutions available. Right now we a forced to give children reduced rights, because we lack means of doing something different.

Only for a month.

That wouldn't have happened in the village I stayed in, because people there were better to each other.

Lucky you.

But that's not a characteristic of a developing country;

I think you mean "limited to" instead of "of a" , and of degrees per country.

you see even more abysmal behavior on Black Friday when they first open the doors at the local Wal-Mart.

Yeah... perspective lost, of course.

 

[iceaura]

and then the racists/misogynist realize they don't need to hid anymore, for they were hiding all this time, never actually converted by the word.

They have never been hiding. They have been loud and proud, for generations. Trump is saying nothing that Rush Limbaugh wasn't saying twenty years ago, and building a dominant media career on.

The progress that we had came about through redress of the law "Here is the problem, here is how to fix it, petition, petition, vote, vote" there were protests, sit-in, there was physical and tangible action, the word, the word did nothing.

How do you say "this is the problem" without naming it? Are you trying to say the US Civil Rights movement never named what it opposed?

I can't stop you, you would burn me on a stake if I tired, but at least heed this warning: be aware of it backfiring.

Like the thing will not be there if we don't name it and talk about it? Misogyny is not a closet monster that will go away if we put our heads under the pillow and don't say its name.

How long do we wait for people who are never confronted with their behavior, never presented with the consequences of what they do or the features of the situation they have created, to achieve enlightenment? Somebody who thinks women already control all the money, say.

Women are human beings and have human rights, full stop. no no "buts" are coming to that statement, I believe it fully, the problem is that what I say about the misogyny may cause you at a emotional level to not believe me, to in a righteous fury demand my punishment for any transgression so perceived despite my full and honest advocation of human rights for all

Drama queen much? This is a digital forum. You're safe - just not from what your posts look like when others look at them. You are not advocating human rights for women. You are advocating complicity in denial of those rights, for some reason.

 

[ElectricFetus]

iceaura,

I got work, latter then.

 

[Tiassa]

If the goal is to turn bigots around, then calling them words, accurate or not, is not helpful, if the goal is social control outside the law, to shame into silence and inaction, by all means call them what ever you want, I can't stop you, you would burn me on a stake if I tired, but at least heed this warning: be aware of it backfiring.

It is not actually the pile of words in that paragraph that is incomprehensible; rather, two primary questions emerge:

• Backfire as compared to what?

• Do you recognize that you are describing psychological dysfunction?​

Here's a proposition: Can you make an argument against injustice without offending the unjust?

What could nonwhites have done to make racists who behave according to your explanation―

"The word reaches a maximum effectiveness, then eventually people get use to hearing it used too often for too many thing, worse the misogynist or racist becomes accustom to it, eventually disregarding it completely, the word now directly stimulates a thought that they must be right, not shame, not fear, not redress ...."​

―stop the public-square racism?

What should women have done over the last fifty years that would have abated misogyny?

Can you provide us an example of an effective argument against bigotry that does not offend the bigots?

You say calling out bigotry backfires? What doesn't?

The progress that we had came about through redress of the law "Here is the problem, here is how to fix it, petition, petition, vote, vote" there were protests, sit-in, there was physical and tangible action, the word, the word did nothing.

Remebering in the first place that the petition itself offends the bigots might be important, here.

6 November 2012. Three states vote in the general election to recognize gay marriage; a fourth votes to not escalate their existing anti-gay statute to the state constitution. Prior to that we ran 0-33, or 1-34, depending on how you count. (The one victory staving off a prohibition in Arizona was reversed the next year.)

Historically, there was a Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, that struck anti-sodomy laws in the states. This, obviously, did not please the bigots.

In the 2004 election cycle, a flashpoint occurred in Multnomah County, Oregon, when a gay couple applied for a marriage license, and the clerk issued it owing to there being no prohibition on the books. Bigots roared that equal protection under the law was a subversion of democracy. States began passing gay marriage bans. Thus began the miserable run at the ballot box for gays, as Americans decided the time had come to put constitutional rights on the ballot: If you're gay, you need to ask the state to please recognize your inalienable rights.

Can you craft an argument against these ballot measures and legislation that doesn't offend the bigots?

My team won because the supreme law of the land was on our side. And that's a sticking point with these particular bigots. They still haven't gotten over Romer v. Evans, in which the court struck Colorado Amendment 2. People can't simply vote away other people's rights like that.

The bigots will never get over Macho Grande.

So they just kept pushing.

Something about petition and vote goes here.

Can you craft that argument?

Do you think direct action doesn't offend the bigots? That doesn't harden their emotional resolve? Because, you know, how does that go?

What do we want?

We won't say!

When do we want it?

Now!​

Remember that direct action and specifically calling out racism over and over is what transformed racism.

It is, of course, more complex, but consider three basic blocs: Those who already favor civil rights, those who straddle some abstract line, and open bigots.

We see it in sexism, too. I did a round with a local columnist a few years ago about sexism and mansplained to her that while her inflexibility wouldn't be chasing off my bloc, that middle group, which is large, is easily frightened off. I stand by that old post, but I'm pretty much over it insofar as I very nearly don't care a whit about the feelings of those fence-sitters; this has been going on long enough that I generally don't trust them. Plenty of them want to do the right thing, and there was a time I would have suggested finding a way to coddle them, but it turns out they pretty much have to be shamed into doing the right thing.

Because in the Civil Rights era, one of the main forces pushing the fence-sitters off so they fell onto the side of justice was the response to direct action.

And in the Gay Fray? Homosexuality is harder to see than dark skin or twin X. But it wasn't just direct action, or calling out bigotry that won the "good" homophobes over. It was also the response from bigots. Coming out was one of the most important things a closet case could do. Take Oregon, for example. Oregon saw "Son of Nine" multiple times after '92, and gays held the line until 2004, but that battle cry over Multnomah County proved potent, that it was a subversion of democracy if Christians weren't allowed to approve or withhold other people's inalienable rights.

But the whole time, what was happening in Oregon and all over the country, was that every time the "good" homophobes―you know, not really committed, but merely traditional and uncertain and trying to be (ahem!) "fair"―were called to the ballot box, The Gay had crept a little bit closer to them. Coworkers. Friends. Family. It became harder and harder for these people to look their associates in the eye and say no.

And what did we get out of that? Three and a half states, and it made all the difference in the world. The Supreme Court put Windsor off until the spring term in large part because there was an election coming up, and this was one of the subjects in which the sense of the nation, the attitude of the public, is really important; the old Bowers decision, overturned by Lawrence, relied in large part on the sense of the nation, with its most substantial legalistic argument reaching back to England in order to legitimize the decision.

We got three and a half states, and, in the end, nothing short of victory.

So I come back to that question: What part of history suggests taking it easy on bigots works?

We didn't win by being polite. We didn't win by worrying about the bigots' feelings. We won because we had the supreme law of the land on our side, and we bludgeoned our way to justice. We won more in twenty-five years women have in the last fifty, or nonwhites over the last sixty.

We won.

And the only people left in the bigot camp are the bigots.

The fence-sitters? The "good" bigots? You know, the ones who don't really hate you but, you know, excuses, excuses, not the right time, excuses, too much too fast, slow down, excuses, excuses ... there aren't many left. Those who were offended by the proposition that their inaction lent support to bigotry hardened their emotional resolve and threw in with the bigots. But we won because we fought back, and the shrieking, hardened resolve of the traditionalists eventually made the point sufficiently that most of the fence-sitters came down to earth on our side.

But we did not win a social revolution in twenty-five years by being polite.

And not a single one of us can turn around and look our sisters in the eye and tell them it's not time, or that they're moving too fast. We betray everything we just won, and the basic human decency we fought so hard to acheive, if we do that.

And nothing in history suggests that going out of our way to coddle bigots helps end bigotry. Indeed, it only reinforces their perception of being right.

The time for compassion is when they are ready to rise up out of that shadowed valley of hatred. We'll even chain up to reach out a hand to help them climb. But they do not get to drag us or anyone else down drown with them.

 

[ElectricFetus]

What no anime picture, please allow me:

and to answer your question earlier: Yes I am without shame. Now if I could get rid of this annoying sense of self-preservation I could die happy.

Here's a proposition: Can you make an argument against injustice without offending the unjust?

Easily! I think I already did it just a post ago, for example "Black people are overly searched and burdened by police, we need to end "stop & frisking" and "broken window policies" and regressive tax by fine!" sure maybe that will offend someone, probably pigs, but indirectly, at least I'm not childishly calling them names. (see what I did there?)

You say calling out bigotry backfires? What doesn't?

Are there shades of gray for you, not the sexy kind, I mean "nuance"? Like I could tell a person kindly not to drive drunk, "hey could I see your keys, thanks, I'll give them back latter, bye" maybe it will backfire and he will punch me in the face, but I could also scream at him for being a fucking idiot, probably get punched in the face, I lay there and he drives off.

Remebering in the first place that the petition itself offends the bigots might be important, here.

Totally the same thing as calling people names. You know what, why petition then? Lets just call them names, that will totally get things done.

6 November 2012. Three states vote in the general election to recognize gay marriage; a fourth votes to not escalate their existing anti-gay statute to the state constitution. Prior to that we ran 0-33, or 1-34, depending on how you count. (The one victory staving off a prohibition in Arizona was reversed the next year.)

Historically, there was a Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, that struck anti-sodomy laws in the states. This, obviously, did not please the bigots.

In the 2004 election cycle, a flashpoint occurred in Multnomah County, Oregon, when a gay couple applied for a marriage license, and the clerk issued it owing to there being no prohibition on the books. Bigots roared that equal protection under the law was a subversion of democracy. States began passing gay marriage bans. Thus began the miserable run at the ballot box for gays, as Americans decided the time had come to put constitutional rights on the ballot: If you're gay, you need to ask the state to please recognize your inalienable rights.

Tell me do those bills that establish gay marriage say anywhere the the word "Homophobe" in them? Trick question.

Also if your wondering, my sexual preference is cartoon based, no laws will make marriage possible for me, but maybe if I scream "ponyphobia" loud enough?

My team won

Stop right there. What is this a sports game to you? Perhaps you mean "tribe": "us and them", "othering", these are instinctive, evolved back from before we came down from the trees so as to allow us to murder each other with self-righteous rage, disgusting.

Remember that direct action and specifically calling out racism over and over is what transformed racism.

transformed racism... into what? Ugly caterpillar into a pretty schmetterling? Is this butterfly the new kind of racism where crimes must not be reported, where mass rape must be covered up for as long as possible (only days thankfully) because acknowledging what is happening might enrage racists?

We see it in sexism, too. I did a round with a local columnist a few years ago about sexism and mansplained to her that while her inflexibility wouldn't be chasing off my bloc, that middle group, which is large, is easily frightened off. I stand by that old post, but I'm pretty much over it insofar as I very nearly don't care a whit about the feelings of those fence-sitters; this has been going on long enough that I generally don't trust them.

You don't trust people? Assume the worse in people perhaps? I never noticed.

shamed into doing the right thing.

It does not change their internal opinion, they obey only out of fear, once they don't fear you, all that bigotry will erupt.

"I'm voting for Trump"
"why???"
"I'm tired of this PC shit"

... The Gay had crept a little bit closer to them. Coworkers. Friends. Family. It became harder and harder for these people to look their associates in the eye and say no.

yeah yeah that sounds all nice and good, but it is evidence of nothing. Great story but you have not proven cause and effect. But I do have evidence for you by the way, I don't mind helping your argument:

boy she changed tune! I wonder if she really changed her mind, or if she will just says what ever to get votes? I will probably have to vote for her though, lesser evil, shameless and prideless I am.

We didn't win by being polite. We didn't win by worrying about the bigots' feelings. We won because we had the supreme law of the land on our side,

The last part is correct, but you have still yet to prove being rude and hateful was the means, you simply reiterate your claim over and over in different ways but present no evidence, no proof, nice story though

We won.

Good for you, was there an after game celebration?

The time for compassion is when they are ready to rise up out of that shadowed valley of hatred. We'll even chain up to reach out a hand to help them climb.

Funny that, when Mendela was elected, did he call out the white South Africans as racist oppressors, did he ever use an epithet against them? Or did he move right on to national reconciliation, absolving some people of horrific crimes, tell me did it go something like this?

"So you murder hundreds yes?
"yes"
"ok so we are going to call you "white devil" one thousands times until you're sorry"

But they do not get to drag us or anyone else down drown with them.

Drown you say? Little hate leaking out? Oh but its the other tribe, they are evil, what harm comes to them is ok, right? Tell me: are bigots human?

Sorry iceaura, one a day.

 

[Tiassa]

Part the First

​

What no anime picture, please allow me

Didn't have one to suit the occasion or my mood. Don't worry, though; I'll even put music behind them, this time.

Easily! I think I already did it just a post ago, for example "Black people are overly searched and burdened by police, we need to end "stop & frisking" and "broken window policies" and regressive tax by fine!" sure maybe that will offend someone, probably pigs, but indirectly, at least I'm not childishly calling them names. (see what I did there?)

You need to figure this out: Accurate descriptions of people's behavior is not name-calling.

Besides, you're offending the police by suggesting they're not doing their jobs right.

Can't do that, by your ridiculous postulation. You know, you'll just harden their emotional resolve.

Are there shades of gray for you, not the sexy kind, I mean "nuance"? Like I could tell a person kindly not to drive drunk, "hey could I see your keys, thanks, I'll give them back latter, bye" maybe it will backfire and he will punch me in the face, but I could also scream at him for being a fucking idiot, probably get punched in the face, I lay there and he drives off.

Getting the keys out of your friend's hand doesn't take sixty years. Or fifty. Or even twenty-five.

Totally the same thing as calling people names. You know what, why petition then? Lets just call them names, that will totally get things done.

You know, this is why people think you're defending misogyny and bigotry.

When Regula I showed silence, Mr. Spock told the Captain, "There are two possibilities: They are unable to respond; they are unwilling to respond."

Accurate descriptions are not name-calling; are you unable, or unwilling to acknowledge this?

Tell me do those bills that establish gay marriage say anywhere the the word "Homophobe" in them? Trick question.

Also if your wondering, my sexual preference is cartoon based, no laws will make marriage possible for me, but maybe if I scream "ponyphobia" loud enough?

Your mockery of the situation doesn't help dispel people's perceptions of your support for bigotry.

Just sayin'.

And no matter how much those perceptions might offend you, it's easy enough to break them.

Stop right there. What is this a sports game to you? Perhaps you mean "tribe": "us and them", "othering", these are instinctive, evolved back from before we came down from the trees so as to allow us to murder each other with self-righteous rage, disgusting.

Is sport the only meaning of team you are capable of recognizing?

Despite our death toll, we didn't actually fight a war. But we did participate in a competition of vital importance. Bigotry can destroy a victim; Jay Kallio is dying because his doctor deliberately withheld a cancer diagnosis. You know, just as an example:

It began when Kallio found a lump on his breast just three months after a mammogram. He had a second mammogram, then a biopsy and, when weeks went by without receiving any test results, he just assumed everything was fine. That changed when he suddenly got a phone call from the doctor who performed his biopsy -- and who was not his primary physician.

"She said to me, 'Hi, I was just curious how you were doing with your diagnosis.' And I said, 'What diagnosis?' She sort of spurted, '[Your doctor] hasn't called you yet?'" Kallio remembered.

The biopsy confirmed that Kallio had "very aggressive" breast cancer, and Kallio knew he needed treatment immediately, especially as the pain in his breast intensified.

"It felt like getting shot slowly. It felt like it was heading right for my heart. So I was getting nervous. I still get nervous when I think about it," he said.

Even after that, Kallio's doctor still wouldn't contact him, which came as a huge surprise considering his doctor was head of surgery at a major hospital in "great big blue Manhattan," a liberal city where Kallio expected "embracing care" from "competent experts." The physician eventually got in touch when Kallio made moves to have his case transferred, but the conversation did not go as he hoped.

"The first thing [the doctor] said was, 'I have a real problem with your transgender status.' And he said, 'When I found out you were transgender, the first thing I wanted to do, my first impulse was to send you to psychiatry,'" Kallio said. "So this is what a breast surgeon wanted to do with my breast cancer, is first send me to psychiatry."

(Buxton↱)​

So, yeah. You know. Don't want to hurt the bigot's feelings.

You know, something about petition and ballot goes here. The bigots came for us.

But, you know, all they wanted was our human and constitutional rights.

So, yeah. Let's just hang the victims of bigotry out there, because, you know, we don't want to hurt the bigots' feelings.

Something about "disgusting" goes here.

transformed racism... into what?

It's a different kind of racism, now.

White cops can't sic the dogs on black people asking for their constitutional rights; that hurt the white cops' feelings. These decades later, apparently an unarmed black man with his back to a cop is more of a threat to life and limb than a white guy with a gun threatening to kill; this is a problem, but it would seem nobody should say anything about racism, or injustice, because it might hurt the racists' feelings.

Ugly caterpillar into a pretty schmetterling? Is this butterfly the new kind of racism where crimes must not be reported, where mass rape must be covered up for as long as possible (only days thankfully) because acknowledging what is happening might enrage racists?

Start making sense, please.

You don't trust people? Assume the worse in people perhaps? I never noticed.

Fallacious word games like that do nothing to dispel people's perceptions of your support for bigotry.

Just sayin'.

And no matter how much those perceptions might offend you, it's easy enough to break them.

It does not change their internal opinion, they obey only out of fear, once they don't fear you, all that bigotry will erupt.

Are you trying to make some sort of joke?

Sen. Rob Portman. Former Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Tell me, do you think they are still anti-gay? Do you think they secretly hate their children?

yeah yeah that sounds all nice and good, but it is evidence of nothing. Great story but you have not proven cause and effect. But I do have evidence for you by the way, I don't mind helping your argument ...

... boy she changed tune! I wonder if she really changed her mind, or if she will just says what ever to get votes? I will probably have to vote for her though, lesser evil, shameless and prideless I am.

Do you think people are incapable of learning?

There's a weird phrase we've heard now and then in various issues, some of which have nothing to do with bigotry, in recent years, when someone has their "coming to Jesus" moment. With addicts, it is referred to as the "moment of clarity".

In '91 and '92, my parents played the role of fence-sitters, but by the time November rolled around, they had their heads on straight. For me that's weird, because after I came out, they both said they've known since I was young. Which, in turn, would mean ... what? Did they just suppress some abstract hatred toward me? Is it going to erupt someday in the future? No; they didn't need to be specifically shamed off the fence. Back then we were still begging people to not do this. The viciousness of the bigots, combined with logic and a dash of the very same human decency they tried to teach my brother and me, brought them to earth on the side of justice. When my mother learned that her boss was gay? It wasn't evident, then, but she made her choice. He wasn't just a good boss, he was also a good person in her perception; she had to make a choice, and the hemming and hawing stopped―she would simply not tell him no. It really is funny they say they knew; I have no idea what that brief period of appeasement was about if they knew. Because if they knew, they knew before I did. And who knows, maybe they still thought one could condition the gay away. I don't know. My father even went so far as to say if I wanted to wear skirts back in the eighties, that would have been fine with him; it's bullshit, but that's the story he tells, and that's the story he's sticking with.

The last part is correct, but you have still yet to prove being rude and hateful was the means, you simply reiterate your claim over and over in different ways but present no evidence, no proof, nice story though

Accurate descriptions of behavior are not rude and hateful.

Your use of bigots' arguments won't help dispel people's perceptions of your support for bigotry.

Just sayin'.

And no matter how much those perceptions might offend you, it's easy enough to break them.
____________________

Notes:

Buxton, Ryan. "This Trans Man's Breast Cancer Nightmare Exemplifies The Problem With Transgender Health Care". The Huffington Post. 15 June 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 29 January 2016. http://huff.to/1SIx5Lh

―End Part I―​

 

[Tiassa]

Part the Second

​

[image file]

Your mockery of the situation doesn't help dispel people's perceptions of your support for bigotry.

Just sayin'.

And no matter how much those perceptions might offend you, it's easy enough to break them.

Good for you, was there an after game celebration?

Your mockery of the situation doesn't help dispel people's perceptions of your support for bigotry.

Just sayin'.

And no matter how much those perceptions might offend you, it's easy enough to break them.

Funny that, when Mendela was elected, did he call out the white South Africans as racist oppressors, did he ever use an epithet against them? Or did he move right on to national reconciliation, absolving some people of horrific crimes, tell me did it go something like this?

"So you murder hundreds yes?
"yes"
"ok so we are going to call you "white devil" one thousands times until you're sorry"

After he won? Not quite the same.

The word "apartheid" hurt the white supremacists' feelings.

The idea that apartheid needed to stop hurt the white supremacists' feelings.

Calling Steven Biko's death a murder hurt the white supremacists' feelings.

Your ridiculous rhetorical sleight will not help dispel people's perceptions of your support for bigotry.

Just sayin'.

And no matter how much those perceptions might offend you, it's easy enough to break them.

Drown you say? Little hate leaking out? Oh but its the other tribe, they are evil, what harm comes to them is ok, right? Tell me: are bigots human?

What, are you about to try the Schmelzer trick↑?

(Hint: It didn't work for Schmelzer.)

I'll simply refer you to my prior remarks↑ on the subject.

Your pretense of pedantry will only encourage people's perceptions of your support for bigotry.

Just sayin'.

And no matter how much those perceptions might offend you, it's easy enough to break them.

What part of history suggests taking it easy on bigots works?

And oh, hey: You know, we had that exchange about being pissed off, and so forth? What part of your behavior do you think isn't offensive? And what part of your behavior conforms to your proposition that you need to be polite or else you'll just harden people's emontional resolve?

―Fin―​

 

[iceaura]

Totally the same thing as calling people names. You know what, why petition then? Lets just call them names, that will totally get things done.

Who's doing that besides you and the rest of that crowd here?

I've got at least three posts on this thread specifically objecting to you guys trying to convert a discussion of misogyny into a defense of namecalling people "misogynists". Why do you insist on misrepresenting other people's posting in that manner? Why do you attempt to convert the entire discussion into one of namecalling?

Funny that, when Mendela was elected, did he call out the white South Africans as racist oppressors, did he ever use an epithet against them?

So you are abandoning the US entirely? One can see why.

Mandela, btw, was quite open about the hatred and contempt and prejudicial disdain displayed toward black people by white people in South Africa. He used the word "hatred" frequently. So by your standard rewording, he was namecalling, epithet deploying.

 

[DaveC426913]

...you guys trying to convert a discussion of misogyny into a defense of namecalling people "misogynists"....
Why do you attempt to convert the entire discussion into one of namecalling?

Let's all remind ourselves what the opening post states:

The word gets a lot of play here, and I think it's tossed around too liberally.

The opening post has set the stage to discuss the use of the word as name calling - the act of labeling someone with the word.

 

[Schmelzer]

What, are you about to try the Schmelzer trick↑?
(Hint: It didn't work for Schmelzer.)

Better name it the Tiassa trick: To hide cheap attacks against somebody else answering third parties, in the hope that this will not be seen by the attacked person, and to create the impression as if this would be some already widely acknowledged in the forum fact.

BTW, the test question you have linked has worked nicely, even much better than I have supposed writing it. Even two people have immediately given answers which allowed me to correct my expectations about the American society today.

 

[billvon]

You do realize that some societies in fact think it unwise to let women drink, drive, smoke, or not be protect, quite possible because in their society it is unwise.

Of course. And if you were in a crowd of cops it would be unwise to say "I hate you fascist pigs!" However, your RIGHT to do that is (and should be) protected by law. Similarly, smoking and drinking to excess are unwise for anyone (not just women.) But you would be pretty upset if the government told you you couldn't smoke or drink at all, even if they thought it was for your own good.

Of course their solution to protect the women, does no address the cause of why they would need make such decision. Now imagine we lived in a world where each one of us was minded by a robot from birth, the cars drive themselves, and any action we take is judged and gently directed for are own good

Then we would live in a world where we had far fewer rights, and that would be a bad thing.

then what need would there by to give children reduced rights

They would already HAVE reduced rights under your proposal. Whether those rights are taken away by a parent or a robot is largely immaterial to the person without the rights.

What I'm getting at is morality is created to deal with problems we have, very different moralities are created because of very different problems and solutions available. Right now we a forced to give children reduced rights, because we lack means of doing something different.

No, the suggestion you made above was simply a different way to give children reduced rights.

I think you mean "limited to" instead of "of a" , and of degrees per country.

Yes. Each country does this to different degrees.