Degrees of Misogyny

If someone you fancy gives you a compliment, your response is to feel offended and intruded upon, right ...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Rewind↑:

... it also seems self-evident to me that one need not reach to abstraction in order to oblige respect unto our sisters. Rather, this is pretty straightforward and practical: Gentlemen: On such occasions that you might be seen reading in public, how often is that act intended as a signal that you want a man to try to get your permission to stick his erect penis inside your body? I would further remind that there comes a point at which the affirmative means you're likely not going to be hitting on women. Bisexual is one thing, but it's not going to work at Starbuck's, it's not going to work at the pub, generally speaking; and the places where it might work (A) you won't be hitting on women, and (B) it might still not work because in the gay male community, "too desperate" is sometimes interpreted as "lethally dangerous".

That is to say, among the men who most need to consider these questions, it seems rare are the days you'll grant another man who might be thinking of how good your lips will look with his sex jammed between them the same manner of intrusion and disruption of your reading time so many would otherwise oblige of women.

(Boldface accent added)​

It's always suggestive when people simply repeat the simpleton's pitch without considering the larger issue.

To wit, we'll borrow the question I asked Bowser↑: What gives you the right?

And by what logic do you presume someone fancies you?

No, really:

"If someone you fancy gives you a compliment, your response is to feel offended and intruded upon, right ..."​

If someone you fancy gives you a compliment? That's not the issue, here.

Which, in turn, is also pretty suggestive: When the response is to desperately try to change the subject.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are a moderator. What am I supposed to say? You're in a position of power, everything you say is by default the truth and right.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Modern political correct America. You have to shut up. Freedom of speech? Forget about it.

 

It's almost like you live in a society where there is a group that is set up in a higher position than you, with more authority, and that you have to at least pretend to listen when they say something. You should take it as a complement that the moderator even said something in response to you.

 

The fear that has been created, is due to irrational liberal social policies. Back in the old days, men were taught to have a lot of respect for women. This was taught by mothers, fathers, churches and even culture. Watch some of the old movies to see how men were portrayed dealing with women. The women were placed on a pedestal by the men, and had little to fear. Women and Children got in the life boats, with the husband staying behind, sacrificing for family and country.

Social opportunities may have been limited for women, since their needed role was as mother and wife, but their security and safety was not lacking. The world of the old time men, outside the family, was different, with men often tough and cruel to other men; war, business and life. The women were shielded from this darker world of the men, where the men strengthen each other via male competition; insults and fights. War was considered the way of the world so one needed to be prepared; train, to defend family and home. It was similar to football training where you can get hurt and sore in training, but this helps you during the big game.

When liberalism broke up the family and its feminism wing disrupted the traditional roles of men and women, the old fashion men were often punished for being nice and respectful to the women. Unless you are older, you may not remember this. Back during the transition, if an old fashion male opened the door for a feminist woman, she would yell at him for being a sexist caveman. The feminist women work hard to teach the males not to be nice in any of the traditional ways. They wanted to be treated like the men. The women did not really understand what they were asking for.

Men slowly brought the women into their less than utopian world, that was full of conflict and confrontation; training for war. The women should have been happy, since this got what they wanted; grass is always greener. What they now wanted was all the advantages they fantasized the men had, but with none of the liabilities of the real world of men. They then worked on removing what they saw as the liabilities of the men, by feminizing the men, so they behave more like women; expecting to be on the social lifeboat. Men lost they natural male instincts connected to the old timer training. If one is tough they can survive even if the boat sinks. If one is weak they need a lifeboat to survive.

Old fashion male value is taboo based on the irrational rules of PC, since it is said this brings us backwards. While liberalism calls men brutes, cavemen, misogamists, which to the men means this is how liberalism wishes men to behave. Men are rational to cause and affect. You can't say caveman and expect socialite; that would be irrational.

This is why the males need to take control and straighten out the house; Trump. We need one standard for all and not liberal dual standard, emotional shake down, and irrational PC rules creating confusion and division.

 

I was not aware that the talk was about harassing.
So I have taken a look at the context:

And this was about harassing? Let's try:

Not plausible. So, it seems, Bowser has not talked about harassing. Of course, he may have talked about something which in political correct newspeak is named "harassing". So, this was not about real harassing, but about what is named harassment in political correct speech.

Indeed. My suggestion that not allowing politically incorrect speech is mere political correctness says quite a bit about my personal character. I have never liked political correct speech, already as a child during communist time, so that this may be indeed about my character.

 

It's legal to be fired for it, but that doesn't make it illegal in general.

 

On Needing a Brutish Man

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Click for a song that is supposed to be satire except it turns out to not be.​

Modern human rights of Schmelzer: Presuming he has some ownership stake over a woman's body.

Free speech does not include the right to harass. Why do men require a right to harass? What possible need do men have that people should argue for their right to stir up shit by harassing other people?

Isn't denigrating women enough, Schmelzer? Is the only way to fulfill your need to also denigrate men?

Seriously: Why do you see men as so weak and stupid as to require special protection of a right to harass?

Civilization is not a suicide pact; if men are as dangerous as you need them to be, then men need to be severely curtailed and monitored for public safety.

Really, Schmelzer, show some human decency; there ought to be some limit to just how much you're willing to humiliate yourself.

 

Mod Hat ― Response

You could try addressing the issues. You could try making an argument. You might even try making sense.

Seriously, you had an iteration of the issue right in front of you, and you changed the subject.

This is not surprising. You are not original in doing so. You are not super-smart for having figured out some mysterious new innovation; rather, you're just another cheap disruptor who thinks too much of himself.

Your participation in this thread:

• #424↑ ― Quoted misognyistic ravings of a (chortle!) "spiritually superior man".

• #425↑ ― Unmitigated nonsense, including argument that catcalling is intended to disrupt°.

• #427↑ ― Refusing to actually address issues.

• #429↑ ― Incomprehensible save for its rancid self-superiority.

• #430↑ ― Unmitigated useless irrelevance.

• #432↑ ― Unmitigated stupidity.

• #434↑ ― Further unmitigated stupidity.

• #437↑ ― Even further unmitigated stupidity.

• #441↑ ― Desperately stupid attempt to change the subject.

• #443↑ ― Even more desperately stupid attempt to change the subject.​

Get this part through your head: There comes a point at which, yes, your stupidity is offensive to this community.

Investing that stupidity in apparent advocacy of dangerous, antisocial behavior only increases the imperative that we take note of that stupid investment.

What are you supposed to say? How about anything useful. That would be new.

How about something not utterly and disgracefully stupid? That, too, would be an innovation you could take some pride in.

Perhaps you might actually try saying something relevant? I mean, come on, that's not exactly asking a whole lot.

Seriously, figuring out how to be something other than a perpetual and irredeemable detriment to the community ought not be so difficult.

 

Reported.

I know, I know, in this Orwellian system, that's like throwing cotton wads against a speeding train ...

 

Do you really think that I read all the ... written here?

What I have realized is that this is what you claim. Which is, given that you defend modern politically correct speech, something very different.

If he has literally said this, please quote with a link to the source. Too lazy to search myself. Else [self-censored].

Why should I care? I have nicely survived in the USENET which existed without any form of censorship at all. And I felt quite comfortable there. Too bad that spam has killed it.

I see you simply don't understand that they will never get this right in reality.

Or, to be more accurate, the only chance to get it is to get rid of the state of law, and return to lawlessness. The situation where every women who does not like a man can claim that she thinks this man has harassed her saying something which on can, in principle, interpret as quite indecent, but, given that the "law" is quite vague about this, even those who want to harass can do this quite safely (if they can afford expensive lawyers) and those who end in prison tend to be innocent poor people with bad lawyers - as usual if there is no rule of law.

This is sort of a theorem. http://ilja-schmelzer.de/agora/Zinoviev.php Whatever the precise, law-like rule of censorship, you can circumvent it and remain legal, but transfer the same information. "In a patriarchal sexist society, I could have said 'wow, nice boobs'." Is this harassment or not? If not, the women receives essentially the same information in a legal way. If yes, you have to forbid even factually correct information. Censorship restricts only the stupid ones.

PS: If I don't answer some posts addressed to me, this usually means that their quality is far too low, in a far too obvious way, to address them.

 

No, it's not.

The reason many women _take_ it as a terrible thing is due to what happens right after they hear "you are beautiful" and they don't shut the guy down right away. It is often one of the following:

"Wanna go out?"
"And your ass is perfect! And those boobs . . ."
Unwelcome intrusion into personal space
Unwelcome touching
Someone following you for 2 blocks saying "what's wrong, can't you take a compliment? Look at me, don't just walk away! Bitch."

Now, you may claim "but I would TOTALLY never do that! It's not my fault that other guys are jerks." Well, that may be - but that is also why you telling random women they are beautiful is stressful to many of those women. Because they are preparing for what usually comes next. You can ignore that, of course - but that's somewhat callous.

 

So, a few months back I was in the store getting a pack of smokes. There was a woman there wearing what I thought might be the coolest shirt I have ever seen (printed skulls).
"Wow, that's a cool shirt," I said. "Where did you get it?"
"A Grateful Dead concert," she replied.
"I really like it," I said.
And that was the total sum of our interaction.

 

Repeatedly intruding into people's thoughts, progress down the sidewalk, etc, - coercively demanding personal attention for oneself from strangers - without being invited or welcomed, is harassment regardless of the ostensible content of the intrusion. Bullies do this, criminals do this, abusers do this, people of direct and real threat do this, and so the threat is present.

This has nothing to do with the content of the speech, its political correctness etc. It has to do with domination and threat, overt demonstration of vulnerability.

If you really do have any experience with oppressive societies, you must know that - it's a common, almost universal tactic of police in a police state, or organized criminals in neighborhood controlled by gangs, or men in a society featuring male oppression of women.

Bowser is talking about harassment.

Your fantasies about people calling the police on poor innocent men for casual remarks are not relevant.

In a store, where she was already impeded, had some control and protection, and your interaction was limited in advance, maybe it was the "total sum". If you had accosted her on the street and imposed the same conversation, different story. We're taking your word for the circumstances, your tone, etc - and you are apparently unreliable in this matter, as you seem oblivious to the viewpoint of your conversational targets.

 

We all talk to people. Where and how you do it, and the context in which you do it, matters a great deal.

You might say "you look beautiful" to a woman who you met last week and who has, in the past, asked your opinion on the dress she was wearing - and it likely would not be taken as the prelude to something uncomfortable or worse.

You might say "you look beautiful" to a woman you don't know who ends up standing next to on a subway - and there would be a good chance it would be taken as the beginning of something she wants to avoid.

 

Two and a half points toward that:

• In contact social, there is always the rule of thumb that you don't know what kind of day a person is having. In contact more oriented toward mating, there remains the question of what gives a man the right.​

↳ It also seems important to note that any tension between the two contexts exists because too many people try to subsume the other under the one, as if there is no difference.​

• In either case, though, the interaction you describe passes muster under the unofficial "Two Questions Rule"↱, general discussion of which is often vicariously devastating for the constant, agonizing reminders that so many men apparently need it spelled out like that.​

____________________

Notes:

Jones, Allie. "You Get Two Questions". Gawker. 1 October 2016. Gawker.com. 26 July 2016. http://bit.ly/2a7kQZw