Degrees of Misogyny

For example, Bells keeps talking about how men should be educated etc. etc. IOW, she claims to have the solution, and later, she also provided some links to violence prevention programs that had some success.

My principle (!) is to compare those who only claim to have a solution to a problem to those people who in fact have solved a problem.

Yes, and I still do. Because big talk is cheap.

Uh. One person has the same kind of problems as other people. The shorter expression for that is "problems of the world." Issues aren't often "just semantics," but in this case, this one is "just semantics."

Because the answer to that question would importantly inform how to address the problem of misogyny.

If we start with the premise that human life, in an of itself, is valuable, and that nothing that happens in this world can diminish that value, then that is very different than offering solutions like this: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/netherlands-sex-abuse-victim-euthanasia-incurable-ptsd-assisted-suicide/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then you have a very low esteem for human life and the human mind, and for human society too.

Oh, the sad irony of not checking what the biological sex of the person you're talking to is, and instead just assuming ...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Legislators, doctors, and others in positions of power and authority want people to trust them, unconditionally, to believe those legislators etc. have the people's best interests in mind, they want people to believe that they, the legislators etc. have the moral highground.

Those legislators and doctors in Netherlands were effectively telling that woman, and everyone else: "We are the moral authority, and yet the best we can offer you is to help you off yourself."

That is betrayal, a betrayal of trust and life, a betrayal that must be fought against.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm responding to your posting, not your principles. In your posting here you are doing no such thing.

For example:

Bells never claimed to have "the solution". You never brought in for comparison anyone who did have "the solution".

Meanwhile, I noticed which post you had addressed when I posted my objection, and it wasn't those of Bells's or anything similar.

What are you doing?

In my experience, big talk more commonly emerges from the lower moral levels, not the higher.

I find that different people differ considerably in their problems, and the larger world of impersonal entities differs more yet. This seems especially relevant in a thread about misogyny, where denial of the differences between the experiences of men and women seems - - - symptomatic? - - - something odd. I don't know what you mean by "kind".

I use that expression for the problems of the world, as differentiated from those particular to me.

You have a misled notion of the nature and scale of my problems, if you cannot distinguish them from all the world's. I am not nearly so beset, or so large in my influence and range of effect.

Irrelevant. The answer is unavailable. You will have to discuss misogyny without it, as we all do here, or not at all.

 

Bells has been saying such things all along; others also, and have posted input from links. I took it as a given for this thread.

Holding people to what I think is the high standard.

Depends on what is to be regarded as "higher" and what "lower."

E.g. Say, you have problems with athelte's foot, millions of people do so too. You have problems with earning enough money, millions of people have this problem too.

Hence I'm talking about the _kind_ of problems. Formulated in the most basic way, those problems are problems that come with aging, illness, death, and separation, in all their various forms. Everyone has this kind of problems. Hence, "the problems of the world."

Then I won't discuss it, at least not here.
Someone who doesn't have the solution to the problem of suffering is not fit to consider themselves a moral authority, and we are not obligated to treat such a person as if they were a moral authority.

 

It's strange that people think it's unavailable.
How can one go about daily life if one hasn't figured out such things?

 

Start making sense.

Illiteracy is a tragedy. Fisking is dangerous.

Your principle is anything you can do to keep women subjugated.

But the thing is that if you're going to make a stand for crimes against humanity, it would probably help to make enough sense to not sound like a juvenile troll hoping to transform grandpa's dirty jokes into a life philosophy.

 

The reason my words don't make sense to you is because you keep ascribing to me stances I don't hold. And a gender I am not.
You're completely lost in your imaginations of me. And then you blame me!

 

No, the reason your words don't make sense is because they are meaningless, and therefore worthless.

You seem to think people don't see what you're doing. Who knows, maybe you really do think you're clever. Constantly changing the subject, cowardly evasion, and all you're asking of women is more than any human being can provide.

The answer to what she is supposed to do depends on who makes the assessment.

For instance, in the question of street harassment, we see repeated iterations that she must make it clear that she is not available. First, this is blatant objectification; her existential condition remains subordinate to his until she explicitly declares her independence―men would not accept this obligation unto themselves.

Secondly, despite the years and bodies piling up, these advocates just don't give a damn that what they demand of women gets them killed. This stubborn refusal to recognize the humanity and human rights of women presents a mortal danger in society. But, you know, hey, why should men have to worry about that?

In the question of rape, the general message to women from society is that she must plan each day around the prospect of being sexually assaulted↱. Consider the idea of anti-roofie nail polish; here I'll leave the point to the women, in this case one Rebecca Neagle↗: "The problem isn't that women don't know when there are roofies in their drink; the problem is people putting roofies in their drink in the first place."

The thing that I don't get is whether you think you're original, or whether you're just making antisocial noise in order to be antisocial. The truth is that we've seen many like you before: Walk in, contribute nothing to a thread, pick out the woman in the room and launch all manner of predictable attack. This is an old, flaccid routine, generally impotent yet still unsanitary for pissing all over everything.

You're not original. You're just another two-bit troll who throws random shit around the room and isn't capable of properly advocating any of it. This flood of barren, stinking, shitborne fallacies is just another day in a world overstuffed with cheap, uneducated hatred yielding naught for harvest but self-absement.

You're asking two things of women:

(1) That they be capable of doing more than any human being.

(2) That they remain, while doing so, less than human.​

Neither is this remotely surprising; the two generally go hand in hand.

Here's one "she" can consider: In history, a legal defense for murder known as "gay panic" failed. Think about it for a minute, though. A guy sees someone he fancies, drops a pickup line, gets beaten to death. The reason the gay panic line failed has to do with weird ideas like, "You told him you were gay, and invited him to come with you under that pretense, so how can you say you panicked when he said or did this?"

A rape panic defense is risky in a different way. Unlike gay panic, a real rape crisis exists, and the societal response is to tell women to cover their own interests as well as prevent men from attempting to pursue theirs. It is, functionally speaking, only a matter of time before a woman straps on and stands her ground and shoots a guy to death for dropping a cheap pickup line on her. The only way to acquit would be to presume that he has every absolute right to approach and proposition any woman he wants under any circumstances.

So let's make this as straightforward as possible:

• Hope Racine↑ wrote, "I don't know when reading a book in public became a signal that we're desperate for attention and conversation", and that presents a valid question: Just how does that work?​

If he presumes and thus assigns her context, and he defines his own context, then what does it matter what she thinks?

And therein lies the problem.

Thus: A woman reading a book catches his fancy↑. Why should he interrupt her? Why should he presume she wants to be interrupted? What is the signal about reading a book that says she wants to be chatted up and hit on?

Let's start with that.

Stop erasing women from the discussion; these are their lives we're discussing, after all.

 

And yet you keep erasing me.

 

Another evasion.

Or: It's hard to erase what isn't there.

So let's make this as straightforward as possible:​

• Hope Racine↑ wrote, "I don't know when reading a book in public became a signal that we're desperate for attention and conversation", and that presents a valid question: Just how does that work?​

If he presumes and thus assigns her context, and he defines his own context, then what does it matter what she thinks?

And therein lies the problem.

Thus: A woman reading a book catches his fancy↑. Why should he interrupt her? Why should he presume she wants to be interrupted? What is the signal about reading a book that says she wants to be chatted up and hit on?​

See, you keep skipping out on certain points when actually addressing them would start to construct a bridge between the subject at hand and whatever the hell it is you're on about.

Start making sense.

 

To reply with a brilliant line I've read somewhere: I am not going to defend things you merely imagine I said.

 

Your examples do not support that claim, and from reading the thread it is false.

That would be: "the kinds of problems of the world". The actual problems - what I post about here - differ radically among different people. I do not and never have and never will have the problem of being harassed on the street by misogynistic men, for example, or very many of the other problems afflicting the targets of misogyny.

On our planet, we haven't yet discovered "the solution to the problem of suffering". We haven't found the answer to the actual question you asked, which was much different and seems to have been forgotten by you, either. So we have to make do with other criteria for moral authority, and we find that some people stand on higher moral ground than others even without being moral authorities.

They avoid being moral horrors and dingbats, for example. Not everyone manages that.

You're the one insisting that others provide it. Why?

We manage. We have to - nobody, including you, has figured them out.

 

With all this talk about misogyny, maybe I should cry foul too, given how misogynistically Tiassa and Bells have been treating me!

Really? You think the Buddha didn't find that solution? He was speaking empty words when he said he found said solution?

No, they are directly related. The problem of suffering is just a more fundamental formulation of it.

If they can mistreat people the way they do, including me here, then surely this is because they have found The Answer. Why else would anyone dare treat others with such disrespect??

 

He never said that. If he had he would have been wrong - he hadn't, as we have seen for a thousand years.

It's more abstract, not more fundamental. The question you asked was not at that level of abstraction - a completely different kind of question. Your attempt to deflect from your original question was noticed, is all.

Nobody has to perform any great feats of thinking to disrespect your posts here.

 

I see.

And you are the authority over what I htink? Right.

Thank you, that is very nice of you. You are merely proving my point.

You are an excellent misogynist.

 

You're taking things out of context. The issue was that an effective solution to the problem of misogyny would have to address the bigger picture of violence as such. I looked through some of the rape prevention program they have in Kenya that was linked to before, and that program does address that bigger picture, even if just implicitly.


Secondly, this thread is a sadly excellent example of women's rights supporters demanding of women to tolerate street harassment (or its variation on the internet), which is part of a bigger picture that involves a disrespect of women in general, the objectification of women as objects (to be verbally abused, beaten, and misrepresented), and a false sense of entitlement to women that some men and women (and especially moderators) can't seem to get over.

 

Not ignore. A limited view is too partial to be effective.

The two do not exclude eachother.

I don't know, you haven't said enough yet to see where you stand.

All of Tiassa's, Bells' and some of iceaura's replies to me. They have constantly misrepresented me, have constantly ascribed to me stances I don't hold, and a gender I am not, have constantly demanded of me to defend things I have not said -- and apparently expected I am supposed to be okay with all that.
This amounts to them, the women's rights supporters, demanding that women tolerate street harassment (or in this case, internet harrassment).