Misogyny, Guns, Rape and Culture..

I agree with you in this - we are a sue-happy society that has seen how quickly you can garner money and notoriety through playing the court systems... it's disgusting, and it further damages those who are truly hurt and trying to seek justice.

Not at all; then again, I don't believe "seduction" is necessarily a good thing either... especially given the definition, per the Oxford Dictionary:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Seduction implies you are convincing someone to do something they may not otherwise do... while not rape, it could very easily lead to a situation in which the other party had consented (after being seduced) and then starts to "regain their senses" and says no, only to be ignored.

Thus, when does "no mean yes" and "no mean no"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is that definition what it meant once, or what it means now?

You're saying nothing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As far as I'm aware, it's both the contemporary and classical meaning.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"As far as you're aware" doesn't say awfully much, I'm afraid.

I noted how easily you were able to dismiss the 15th century "origin".
Duty. Hmm, yes. To persuade someone to abandon their "duty". That being, by inference on your part, not having sex. Presumably and heretofore demonstrably aimed more toward the female than the male.

I'm done. Goodnight.

 

You are... quite terrible at these assumptions of yours.

To seduce someone from their duty... such as using seduction to get a guard away from a precious object or a door they were standing watch over.

 

What he had to say was that outrage over allowing pro athletes to beat women in elevators at whim was interfering with his idea of the art of seduction.

And removing publicly identified womenbeaters from the fields of hero worship and congratulatory entertainment would chickify those fields - be a result of the influence of chicks, and nothing one would expect from masculine men.

Is that what you meant by "something"?

 

The Masculine Secret

One of the things I find strange about this part of the War of the Sexes is that as much as we tend to consider masculinity, none such as Limbaugh or our neighbor would actually define what that is. For instance, you're aware of a thread devoted to concepts of "Men, Masculinity, and Humanity"; we might note that specifically defining masculinity makes people uncomfortable.

And well it should; indeed, it should be just as unsettling as trying to define femininity. Yet from Sciforums on up to FOX News and the hallowed halls of Congress and Parliaments around the world, we can always find someone willing to push this undefined masculinity as some manner of license to privilege.

Last month, for instance, FOX News lined up some of its female hosts to explain to the audience how good it is to be sexually harassed; let men be men.

For the last several years at Sciforums we've been able to find someone arguing in defense of men that we are nothing more than brainless machines; strangely, when such arguments are offered in defense of rape and sexual harassment, the MRAs are less willing to complain.

But what is masculinity? How can something be chickified or feminized if we don't know what it is in the first place?

That is to say, is the implication really so vicious? Is "masculinity" a fighting, killing, raping, brutalizing, dominating antisocial phenomenon? Is "masculinity" really so antithetical to civilized society? As I once told a prevention advocate who compared men to hand grenades, we're escalating the argument from, "Seek help", to, "Men should be locked away for the sake of society".

Then again, that is only according to this weird, reactionary anti-identification.

In my lifetime, masculinity has largely been identified as an affecting force; it's hard to think of any aspect that isn't tainted by some manner of self-interest. Fighting, controlling, exercising authority. There are always the so-called upsides of manhood being identified with the ability to support one's family, but those also comes alongside very authoritarian and denigrating self-reinforcement. While there are plenty of men who simply "do their jobs", as such, what is the job description, and is it really a duty for men only? After all, we only hear the duties laid out by those advocating male supremacism, groups like Promise Keepers or the Republican Party.

It should be obvious, though, why men resist enumerating the attributes of masculinity. And it is just as obvious why those who would push masculinity as some sort of license insist on defining femininity. That is, we are still stuck at the de Beauvoir concept: When women act like human beings, they are accused of trying to be like men.

I think it would probably be helpful, then, if those who think and argue as our neighbor has would actually bring masculinity to the forefront.

To wit, I wonder if our neighbor realizes just how much of "masculinity" is being identified and claimed by homosexuals. And that's fine, too. But, generally speaking, one would not imagine men in general will be pleased by the resolutions of that discussion. Indeed, those who hide behind vague notions of masculinity, those whose constant pandering to the concept of what is manly or girly, will most likely be disappointed in the outcomes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Part of the crisis is that we don't seem to have a clue what masculinity actually is, and those who most need the concept in order to justify themselves aren't rushing to let us in on the secret.
____________________

Notes:

Signorile, Michelangelo. "Misogyny and Homophobia in the NFL: Is America's Crisis of Masculinity Playing Out in Its Favorite Sport?" The Huffington Post. September 16, 2014. HuffingtonPost.com. September 20, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/nfl-misogyny-homophobia_b_5828874.html

 

When we attempt to define a thing, Tiassa, we only impose our own values upon it.
This leads to emulation... and simulation.

I could tell a story, here... more than one. But I won't.
Suffice to say, emulation and simulation based upon an agreed definition does not bode well.

You are, or you are not. That is all there is.

 

I just have to put this here...



You ask what being man is all about?

Patrick Stewart puts it beautifully, right here... being a man, a true man, is about standing up for what you believe... about learning from your past and from not just your own, but all mistakes, and seeing how you can help stop them happening again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It is about knowing what you can do, and always striving to do the most good that you can.

Sir Patrick Stewart is my biggest role model after my grandfather... his story is one that gives me strength because it helps me to remember that the way my father acted was not my fault, that my inability to protect my mother and brother from him was not my fault, that my anger and fear is justified... and that the fact we are safe now and can let it out and destress and just live our lives is okay.

What is being a man all about, you ask? It is what you make of it... it is how you live your life and conduct yourself every day... do you strive to be a part of the solution for the ails of the world... or do you make yourself a part of the problem?

 

Hilary Clinton wrote a book, It takes a village. This title is actually more true of women and children. It is less true about being a man. Lewis and Clark, when exploring the western passage in USA, could not take the village with them, because this would not be practical. The village would make the journey way to cumbersome. The village stays behind when the men need to hunt and explore. Being a man is the ability to act apart from the village, but on behalf of the village. After the passage was mapped out, then the village comes to set up house. The set-up needs the village.

If you look in terms of modern younger men abusing women, in the news, this was actually caused by feminism. This is why men are designed to stand outside the village. Sometimes the village has too many village idiots and you need the men to separate until they are needed to clean up the mess.

Mothers and their sons, and fathers and their daughters have a unique and special relationship. The daughter can wrap dad around her finger. While mother is often close and easy on her son trying to spoil him. When the family was whole, the dad would see any manipulation by the son, which mother might allow. He would try to structure the boy to rules in spite of the mother trying to spoil the boy. The net effect was mother was seen as the good person, in the eyes of the son, who showed unconditional love, while dad was more about the law and maybe force.

When the feminist village broke up the family, the fundamental connection between mother and son did not change. What changed was dad was no longer the antagonist since he was not there the same way. The son still learns to manipulate women, through the spoiling of the mother, but now without a third party that becomes the source of pushback so mom remains above the rules. This new dual role of the women, with respect to the boys, also set the standard for how men will look at and treat other women. It is not men teaching boys to men, but women teaching boys to view women as neither unconditional or conditional.

The daughters have formed a different dynamics, since they lose their special father/daughter dynamics due to the separation of the mother and father. She can't learn to work men who love her in a way that endears her to him all that much more. What she has is mother, who sees her games, being the antagonists. She learns nagging instead of coy and endearing manipulation.

The dynamics are set with young men and women different from the traditional roles that were more conducive to men honoring and respecting women. One may notice the NFL abuse, is connected to the demographics with the highest rates of broken homes; it takes a village of abuse. Men need to come back and set it right by first removing the village idiots that do damage and blame others.

 

ah yes why take any sort of responsibility for your actions when you just blame your victims. you are a hateful and delusional person.

 

The Obvious

We might notice that our neighbor never supports any of his assertions. Then again, we need not wonder why.

I also like the bit how he thinks Lewis and Clark traveled alone. Twenty-three military subordinates, a civilian interpreter, a toddler student, and a slave. A Village of One? Or Two? Oh, wait ... an Army of a Village, or Village of an Army? Is that #TheNameOfMyNextBand?

 

The mind boggles. Seriously - do these guys ever listen to themselves?

 

the two are inherently connected. gun culture in the US is rife with the terminology that helps propagate misogyny. hell a fair bit of gun advertising has a major anti female and anti feminist bent to it. look at how many gun ads are about "regaining" or "preserving" one masculinity. generally speaking guns ads lean either to being mildly to moderately anti woman/ pro manhood. or to treating the deadly weapons as toys. this is just your standard bullshit to prevent irresponsible gun owners from having to clean up their shit. which is all i've seen you do in these gun threads.+

 

You have gun ads in the USA?
Heh. I'm still trying to stop chuckling over your ads promoting drugs. Inventing or promoting the ailment and then selling the cure is pure genius, regardless of how morally reprehensible you might think it is.

The only thing one need remember, is that it works only because it is accepted.

 

yes we do. there not common. mostly in gun mags and out door mags but there there.

 

Primary Purpose

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

The question remains: What did Mary Spears do wrong?

Was it just that she wasn't interested in her primary function as a reproductive unit for a man's use? (Rebuffed the advance?)

Did she choose the wrong mate in pursuit of her primary function as a reproductive unit for a man's use? (One reason for refusing the advance was that she was already attached.)

Was her haircut too rape-inspiring?

Was she wearing the wrong shoes?

Was she just a bitch?

What did Mary Spears do wrong?

Investigators say 27-year-old Mary Spears was gunned down simply because she rejected a man's advances inside a hall on Detroit's east side.

Detroit police arrived at the hall early Sunday morning. They found Spears had been shot and killed. Five other people -- men and women -- had been shot, too. They all were attending the same event Saturday night.

Police say Spears was approached by a 38-year-old man who tried to talk with her. However, she wasn't interested. Security escorted the man out of the club. He apparently got into a fight outside and that's when he allegedly pulled out his gun and opened fire.

Spears was one of the first people shot. She was shot in the head. The others all were shot in the leg or hip.​

And, you know, if you're not one of the people who advocates that a woman's first purpose is to be a breeding vessel for men, don't worry about it. This is just another day in America. This is just how it goes.

Okay, let's try this a little more directly: If you were a local police chief, what common-sense prevention tips would you be giving women right now?

This really is an American cultural issue.

Perhaps it's time for women to strap on, stand their ground, and start shooting any man who tries to chat them up? Is that really how we want things to go?
____________________

Notes:

Winchester, Hank. "Police: Woman shot, killed by man she rejected at Detroit hall". Click On Detroit. October 6, 2014. ClickOnDetroit.com. October 7, 2014. http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...-by-man-she-rejected-at-detroit-hall/28976620

 

SO... apparently Colorado is in the hot seat at the moment, thanks to "Personhood, USA"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jen-c...ado_b_5870476.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

Now... I haven't read or seen the actual official "Amendment 67" paperwork... but if half of what is being said is true, that's terrifying... forcing a woman to decline treatment for cancer in favor of trying to sustain the pregnancy... while she's, essentially, dying? Deeming miscarriages and still births as "suspicious deaths" requiring police intervention?

*headdesk* 'Murica... just... just stop... please.

 

Is there really anything surprising about that, though? We tried to have this conversation here, but our anti-abortion folks and a number of ostensibly not anti-abortion peple in our community freaked out.

I think my favorite part, though, was when a vocal anti-abortion advocate angrily demanded to know where I had ever come up with this concept, as nobody really believes in it, and so on. Which is funny because it's the anti-abortion people who always seem to not know what's going on in their ranks. And when the reality of personhood legislation documented for the complainer, he went off about something else, totally unrelated. I think it was the fact that I was discussing the issue at all. That particular record remains available to moderators; remind me to dig it up sometime. It's ... amazing. The word "dishonor" comes to mind. Somewhere out there in the network, there's an anti-abortion advocate who may be twitching in neurotic fits right now; I wonder if he still pretends there is no such idea as this "personhood" thing.

And the question has been plaguing Senate candidate Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO4), who tried desperately to convince voters that his prior support for personhood legislation was a mistake, and then refused to take his name off the bill he cosponsored. So then he lied and tried to say it wasn't a personhood bill, and the bills authors and chief advocates hooted angrily and reminded everyone that it damn well was a personhood bill. Maybe some people just didn't notice because nobody really pays attention to those political bits and pieces except for a couple of politically sympathetic members who share the toxic chuckles.

But this personhood thing is real, and nobody ever has given substantial address to the inevitable Fourteenth Amendment clash. And the personhood advocates are as close to success as they have ever been. And a Supreme Court justice just admitted that he deliberately favors religious folks.

So it's kind of hard to have a favorite part; they're all morbid. Like the Turducken issue; in fact, one of our colleagues knows damn well why I'm chuckling over Turduckens this morning, and for once it has nothing to do with abortion.

But this American melodrama is also a very, very dark farce.

And, in truth, it is symptomatic. Personhood is what the anti-abortion advocates have always wanted; they just used to call it "life". But social conservatives are looking at the world and seeing the end of their power privilege. And this is why it is unhealthy to take on an anti-sexual piety and then spend that much time dealing with issues of reproduction and sexuality.

Then again, even I've made jokes about it all. Time for the Pokies? SCUM-E (Section Chief Uterine and Menstrual Enforcement)? And were this issue not so grim that I could afford myself some personal satisfaction, I would certainly recall some of our conservative neighbors arguing that such things as what Amendment 67 brings aren't real.

As unrealistic as those folks might denounce such projections, this argument has been on the table the whole time.

Then again, the reason this is coming to the fore right now is, as your article implies, that nobody has really been paying attention.

But, yeah, we tried for well over a year to get some answers from anti-abortion advocates at Sciforums. None were forthcoming.