You are imputing motives to Dave which cannot be reliably inferred from what he has been saying.
This is prejudice, on your part.
Agreed. Iceaura's remarks on social dynamics are more reflective of his own ingrained prejudices, rather than Dave's.
You are imputing motives to Dave which cannot be reliably inferred from what he has been saying.
This is prejudice, on your part.
Not motives - culturally ingrained viewpoints. And they nothing if not visible - obvious, even.exchemist said:You are imputing motives to Dave which cannot be reliably inferred from what he has been saying
The problem seems to be that you want a different distinction
No, for several reasons:
1] We are not discussiong me or my behavior; we are discussing a hypothetical guy holding a door. True, even I have blurred the lines, saying 'I' instead of 'Bob', but it is still just a discussion about a hypothetical.
2] You do not speak for "women"; you speak for yourself only.
And now we are supposed to pretend that the overt and clear distinction Dave himself drewmilkweed said:BTW have you ever been confronted for holding a door for someone?
In real life people hold doors out of courtesy, for all kinds of people. Nothing creepy about that.milkweed said:If not, then I guess it just verifies no one thinks its particularily creepy. Well not in real life anyways...
Not motives - culturally ingrained viewpoints. And they nothing if not visible - obvious, even.
It's not a prejudice, but an observation - made right here, overtly, with evidence.
It was Dave, recall, who started out earlier in this thread attempting to deny the presence of misogyny by pointing to an absence of overt hatred. Or as I noted, finally, after reading what came of that:
He - and you - cannot reasonably claim to be merely calling attention to the non-identity of two words we can all look up in the dictionary. You want a particular distinction, or kind of distinction, to make possible the claim that the underlying but visible misogyny necessary to support the culturally normative sexism in the US does not exist.
Exchemist said:At the very least, this shows there is room for a civilised debate - without hysterical mudslinging - on the topic.
"When you point your finger, three of your fingers are pointing back at you." You, of all people, have no business criticizing rudeness.... of basic rudeness.
Please feel free to use the dictionary definitions of choice. No one - including me - forced you to use anything else."Can this thread move forward now, mindful of the distinction?"And the answer is no, we're not moving forward with an artificial standard deliberately crafted to empower his own bigotry.
Logical fallacy. You are attempting declare that your premise (that misogyny is present) is the conclusion. This is called begging the question. There is nothing to deny, since it has not been established in the first place....attempting to deny the presence of misogyny by pointing to an absence of overt hatred.
Straw man. I count several things in there I never said or implied. Go ahead attack that, but they're your words, not mine.- explicitly denying that his hypothetical guy was just "holding the door for someone", as a courtesy, specifically stating that the doorholding was not a courtesy, but an intentionally arranged encounter of chivalry with a "female" who by virtue of femaleness "caught his eye" -
DaveC426913 said:Take responsibility for yourself, that's the only route out of the hate/blame pit.
Does anybody else want to discuss misogyny? Or shall we just keep rehashing the last hundred or so posts?
More ad homs. Got any valid input on the issue?The funny part is how you continue to flee, bawling, from the issue.
So, yeah. Boo-hoo, poor you.
Now, are you capable of answering the issue?
So, that's a 'no' on using a dictionary definition of your choice?―you do not get to arbitrarily redefine words for the sake of your own, personal, ultimately convenient political correctness.
So, you'll just keep rehashing? No movement forward?You have attempted a redefinition, and then cry and wail unto the heavens at the first obvious question.
DaveC426913 said:So, you'll just keep rehashing? No movement forward?
In a thread whose central subject directly involves respect versus contempt - does it not behoove any and all contributors to put their money where their mouths are, and exercise respect while eschewing contempt?
Or be like everyone else, or well, normal people and hold the door for everyone, regardless of sex. Because you know, it's polite to do so. What is not polite is some leering guy who is doing it only for the women who catch his eyes and he's doing it because he just wants to see how 'purdy your lil smile is'. At that point, you have become an object for his enjoyment and pleasure. You can tell the difference between the two, can't you?When guys hold a door for me, I smile and say thanks. I think its nice. Polite. Thoughtful even. I think most people at least say thanks, and even smile so an expectation of a smile in return would be a pavlov's dog expectation. Been there, done that, know what to expect.
Like a thread about trees, leaves should never be mentioned..I asked if anyone was distinguishing between sexism and misogyny. That is a salient - and critical point. A thread about misogyny should be about misogyny, not about something else.
You haven't been trying to keep it on track. You have spent pages trying to redefine it to fit into what makes you comfortable. In the process, you have tried to lecture me about what is and is not misogynistic and then had the gall to tell me that I had no choice but to see it your way. Surely the irony of your behaviour is not lost on you?I am the only one trying to stay on track. Let's talk about misogyny not sexism. Agreed?
Everyone who responded to those points have addressed it as coming from you. Why? Because you said "I", repeatedly. Are you embarrassed that your behaviour is creepy?People are smart enough to know that we are talking about a hypothetical situation for the purpose of discussion. Regardless, attacking a person instead of an argument is still an ad hominem. It does not benefit your case.
And altering the meaning of words to make you comfortable will not help your case.Ad hom. Does not help your case.
If you wish to live in such a world of fantasy, then knock yourself out. But I think Iceaura called it as he saw it. He didn't make it up. He just read your words and interpreted it as they were written.Iceaura's entire paragraph was a straw man. S/he made it up, just the way s/he liked, with a whole pile of words that I didn't say, and then attacked that. You and s/he can beat on that straw man all you want.
But it wasn't a scenario, was it? You only turned it into a scenario when your creepy behaviour was called out. You tried to excuse it and when that didn't fly, you immediately tried to turn it into a "scenario".Another straw man. If you found flaw in my scenario, you wouldn't have to invent your own.
And here you are again, trying to redefine misogyny that does not involve sexism - which is impossible, because misogyny is sexist.. I have to wonder why? Is it because you have been caught out in this thread? Is that why you want to redefine those terms, to make you feel better about yourself?Then we're agreed. Let's discuss misogyny, not sexism.
Oh, I agree that you are trying to redefine meanings of words and terms. I do not agree to go along with you in that regard.Then we are all agreed. Let's discuss misogyny.
I raised this point in post #25.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/degrees-of-misogyny.153037/page-2#post-3346725
A simple "OK, we agree." would have spared us 90 posts.
If that were so, he would not be trying to redefine both the phenomenon and the "cause", as he is. He would be arguing against the argument made, not some different invention of his own.exchemist said:What you said to Dave was this: " you seem to be trying to expunge the stain of misogyny from the sexism of US culture. You want the sexism of US culture to be seen as, rehabilitated to be, innocent, in a sense." This is making a claim about how Dave wants US sexism to be seen. You are saying that is his motive in saying what he says. It may not be. It may simply be that he objects , as I do, to ascribing a phenomenon to the wrong cause.
No. I am objecting to your argument denying the presence of misogyny by pointing to an absence of overt hatred. I pointed out that it was an invalid argument, because the absence of overt hatred does not imply the absence of misogyny. No stage of any argument of mine - premise, conclusion, evidence, presumption, whatever - is involved. How or where or why - or even if - I came to regard misogyny as involved in that example of sexism, has nothing to do with the invalidity of your attempted argument against its presence. Overt hatred is not, as you presume there and apparently since, a necessary feature of misogyny. And I referred you to the OP, as demonstration of that.dave said:...attempting to deny the presence of misogyny by pointing to an absence of overt hatred.
Logical fallacy. You are attempting declare that your premise (that misogyny is present) is the conclusion
Of course. You said he wasn't. You denied the role of courtesy, in order to identify the doorholding as sexism. You were attempting to present an example of innocent sexism, not innocent courtesy (which everyone already admits).dave said:I never said Hypothetical Guy was holding the door "just" out of courtesy.
He deliberately holds doors for those who "catch his eye" and not other people, while "hoping for a smile" just as he would buy a lottery ticket hoping for a win. That's your description.dave said:It was certainly not "intentionally" arranged, nor any kind of "encounter".
There is no debate in that article. And no hysterical mudslinging here, despite the debate.exchemist said:But why not read this Grauniad article in which various feminists (I gather I am no longer entitled to be one, thought I have considered myself one for forty odd years) discuss their views on the difference in meaning of these words: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/17/difference-between-sexism-and-misogyny ?
At the very least, this shows there is room for a civilised debate - without hysterical mudslinging - on the topic.
Yes. One is a straw man.some leering guy who is doing it only for the women who catch his eyes and he's doing it because he just wants to see how 'purdy your lil smile is'. At that point, you have become an object for his enjoyment and pleasure. You can tell the difference between the two, can't you?
Agree! The point has always been that you can discuss sexism without invoking misogyny. Not all sexism is misogynistic.You will not be able to discuss misogyny without looking at sexism.
Ad hom. Address the issue, not the issuer. It doesn't help your argument. Moving to next point.Perhaps you are that pedantic or anal about such things and perhaps you are the type of person who doesn't like the food on his plate to touch
As I have said, please feel free to put forth a defintion you are comfortable with. You can't defer to me then complain about it.You haven't been trying to keep it on track. You have spent pages trying to redefine it to fit into what makes you comfortable. In the process, you have tried to lecture me about what is and is not misogynistic
I only have the gall to expect you to acknowledge an indisputable fact: that Tiassa saw the word "hope" and substituted the word "expect", then went on for 23 lines attacking that straw man:and then had the gall to tell me that I had no choice but to see it your way.
Post #96. That is all I asked.You lied: "Nobody said anything about expectation or job", except you also "hope for a smile". Seriously, why would you say, "Nobody said anything about expecation", and then reiterate your expectation?
Ad hom. Address the issue, not the issuer. It doesn't help your argument. Moving to next point.Are you embarrassed that your behaviour is creepy?
No. S/he added his own, then attacked those. Because it was innocent as-written. Straw man.He just read your words and interpreted it as they were written.
Go back and read it.But it wasn't a scenario, was it? You only turned it into a scenario when your creepy behaviour was called out. You tried to excuse it and when that didn't fly, you immediately tried to turn it into a "scenario".
Your statements above are not logical. I have never claimed that misogyny is not sexist, only that sexism is not necessarily misogynist.And here you are again, trying to redefine misogyny that does not involve sexism - which is impossible, because misogyny is sexist..
Is that why you want to redefine those terms,
Oh, I agree that you are trying to redefine meanings of words and terms. I do not agree to go along with you in that regard.
Then let's use a definition of the terms we can all agree on. I've never laid claim to being the arbiter of the definitions.If that were so, he would not be trying to redefine both the phenomenon and the "cause", as he is. He would be arguing against the argument made, not some different invention of his own.