Degrees of Misogyny

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Bowser, Nov 13, 2015.

  1. Pantaz Registered Member

    Too many guys fail to realize that "one time compliment" has already been received by the woman numerous times. Harassment isn't defined by only one person delivering the unwanted attention.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Sincerity is subjective, and invisible to strangers.

    It's quite common in US society for a single compliment from a stranger to be an offensive harassment intrusively imposed via implied threat. Denial of that objective fact damages one's credibility.
    Objective offensiveness is not in the eye of the perpetrator. The perpetrator of an offense is not an objective assessor of their behavior.

    Meanwhile, you have refused to acknowledge the objective criterion already provided you, that one can use: "For one: When you are interrupting them and forcing them to pay attention to you via implied threat, in pursuit of your own agenda." Note that it doesn't matter what the agenda is, nor is the existence of an implied threat a matter of the perp's assessment or awareness.
    Which is why the credibility of the people who are denying the nature of the public harassment of women in the US is shot. It's too common, too obvious, to much a part of everyone's experience.

    Poe's Law is invoked along about now. Seriously - is that a parody? There's literally no way to tell.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2016
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    I think it's more a state of mind, where one develops an attitude based on negative past experiences. It's obvious that some women have been the objects of sexual harassment. Maybe that has colored their perceptions regarding men in general, to such a degree that even positive remarks becomes suspect.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Or maybe they aren't positive remarks, when they carry threat and are imposed on the unwilling.
  8. Confused2 Registered Senior Member

    I didn't intend to post this but I think it is still relevant...
    Tiassa, I suspect you undermine whatever point you are trying to make when you speak of (ahem) danger when the person involved knows full well they are neither dangerous nor even malicious. 'They' are fishing for confirmation that their behaviour is acceptable based on a set of 'rules' (UK/US and probably elsewhere) intended for the benefit of men and the detriment of women.

    "Madam, you are by far the most attractive creature I have encountered since arriving in London 3 days ago."
    "Why thank you kind sir, the knowledge that you find me attractive delights me more than you could possibly imagine."
    As she steps into her carriage she drops a glove and is gone.
    Godot picks up the glove and hails a cab.
    "Follow that carriage!".
    Eventally he reaches her residence and rings the bell.
    The maid opens the door and sees the glove.
    "Do come in, you are expected."
    Turns out he just stalked the wrong girl. Three days later his mutilated body is found floating in the Thames.
  9. mtf Banned Banned

    Oh well. My vacation is over, I have to go. Not sure if I'll have time to post later. Take care, ya'll.
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    This and That

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Click for something else.

    Do you have some objection to listening to what women tell us?

    See, for some reason, this is one time we don't let the person who perceives danger perceive danger. Or aggression. Or intrusion. Or disruption.

    So the women tell us about their experiences, and why they don't like these kinds of "positive remarks", and you still feel a need to speculate?

    What is the problem? Why is what women tell you inadequate? Why do they need you or any other man to define their experiences for them?

    • • •​

    Uh, you know ... the one posted open rape advocacy.

    Which particular proposition of danger and malice do you dismiss?
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    I can give you more examples if you like, but the one above should suffice for now.

    You asked "When is it impolite to compliment someone on their appearance?" I gave you an example where you would consider it impolite (at the very least) to be complimented.

    What conclusion can you draw from this? That compliments aren't always polite. How polite/impolite they are - even how threatening they are - depends on the situation. I've given an extreme example above; the other extreme is a woman who you've known for years and who compliments you on your appearance, and you return those compliments. Most situations are between those two extremes.
  12. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Lies, lies and more lies. Now identify specifically where I commiserated with mtf. Identify specifically where I defended mtf's alleged bullying. And do not ever have the outrageous arrogance to tell me whether I may or may not feel bullied. And understand fully why I chose to call you a nasty piece of work in a pm. It is because in this and other posts you reveal yourself as exactly that. Now please fuck off. Oh, right you won't. The power you experience here is what makes your world go round. Fortunately I live in a real world with real people where we are working to achieve safety and security for women and men and children, and we are doing by avoiding stereotyping, listening to concerns and not behaving like ignorant assholes. It's been really unpleasant knowing you. And almost as unpleasant knowing Bells.
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    I would not specifically disagree, though I would take it a step farther and assert explicitly that the person offering that "one time compliment" has exactly no say in how it is received.

    Nonetheless, there also exists a question of what constitutes a "failure".

    Because I agree: What I hear from men does suggest many of them reach adulthood without ever figuring this part out.

    But there is also something else going on: With many individuals, there comes a point at which we recognize that this is no failure to recognize.

    Take a look at the culmination of an exchange between DaveC426913↑ and Bells↑. I even skipped out on a post or two because it appeared this dangerous issue DaveC has been pushing at least since March had found some resolution. Unfortunately, DaveC's later↑ posts↑ make it clear↑ the issue is not resolved. His is not a failure to recognize the validity of woman; his is deliberate and calculated invalidation: Woman tell us what's wrong, DaveC decides he should correct her and tell her what's really real in her living experience, and in the face of the retort that he doesn't get to silence her voice, he complains that "any dissenting actual contribution, though, and suddenly they whip on their hat and disallow it." (Italics added.)

    The basic gist of this conduct is pretty straightforward:

    She: Holy shit, I was just sexually harassed.

    He: No, he's just being nice. You don't know what's happening in your own life, so I need to tell you.

    It comes down to an axiom I frequently assert in such disputes: There is a difference between recognizing human frailty and exploiting it. To wit, you and I both know there are "stupid" people "out there" in society. Antivax, supply side, Creationism/ID, and even a twist of Augustinian divine impossibility; there are politicians, preachers, salespeople, and jurists who will aim to exploit human frailty. Indeed, when we get right down to it, exploitation of human frailty is a heartbound component of American historical and cultural heritage, as well as other societies.

    In these issues, advocates who behave as our neighbor DaveC does are exploiting human nature by trying to hide behind it. While many constantly plead that they are misinterpreted, we frequently encounter circumstances in which the clarification seems very difficult to wring out of a person.

    While it is true that there are plenty of men who just don't know―and this is part of the problem, too―there also comes a point at which certain cases clearly do not qualify as a failure to recognize; these are issues of deliberate calculation.

    And that is dangerously antisocial behavior.
    Pantaz likes this.
  14. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Holy shit this guy is an asshole.
    pjdude1219, billvon and Pantaz like this.
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Actually, It Isn't Funny, But Still

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Suou rejects street harassment: Click for #422, and Stand Her Ground.

    Isn't if funny how I produce links and quotes supporting what I'm describing―you know, providing actual evidence―while all you can do is blither on and say nothing definitive?

    So go ahead and say, "Lies, lies, and more lies", all you want.

    To wit:

    Try #589↗?

    mtf said this: "Wait, I think I get it: _Anyone_ who dares to do anything but vehemently agree with anything Tiassa, Bells, and some others say, is, in the view of Tiassa, Bells etc. a misogynist, rape advocate, victim blamer etc."

    I have felt exactly the same way.
    Remarkably for one of my age and experience I have felt bullied by them.
    While their intentions may be sincere their posts come across as knee jerk reactions.
    Their misinterpretation of my posts and those of mtf is not accidental. I view it as a deliberate character assassination based on who knows what.

    If their intent is to promote the safety of women from predatory men they are going the wrong way about it. Defaming the motives and beliefs of persons on the same side of the fence because they ask awkward questions, or do not align 100% with their views is despicable and cowardly and ignorant. Their actions, their words and their attitudes do their cause, their reputations and this site, no favours. They disgust me.

    See also, mtf at #562↑, which in turn links to #503↑ explaining the quote. Mtf is, in that post, responding to the proposition that deliberate invalidation of women's living experiences is dangerous.

    However, also note that in #562, responding to James R's inquiry, "Do you think that clarifying your position would help?" there is no clarification.

    Mtf is responding to #501↑, part of an exchange with Bowser orbiting the question of "how we define harassment", or: "Does a compliment, especially when offered to a women, qualify as harassment?" At this point, it would be nice if any of these advocates could acknowledge reality; as I told Bowser, "for all women are trying to tell us the problem, that you should ask that particular question means you haven't been paying attention".

    I offered you a block of three posts; you have shown no hint of having attended or considered their content. These posts, #572-574↑ document the problems about the arguments of several members, including you.

    And it really isn't surprising that you haven't answered that; after all, skipping out on the record is a vital component of this behavior.

    Still, though, that doesn't settle the question of your commiseration. This part is straightforward. Ready?

    • mtf said this: "Wait, I think I get it: _Anyone_ who dares to do anything but vehemently agree with anything Tiassa, Bells, and some others say, is, in the view of Tiassa, Bells etc. a misogynist, rape advocate, victim blamer etc."

    Poor mtf. Perhaps you might take a moment to answer a basic straightforward question:​

    What part of open rape advocacy↑ against women would you consider not misogynistic, rape advocacy, or victim blaming?

    I would appreciate an actual answer, please.​

    • I have felt exactly the same way.

    Perhaps you might explain to us just how you have felt the same way? I mean, really? Mtf posts rape advocacy, feels offended at being called out, and you have felt exactly the same way?​

    • Remarkably for one of my age and experience I have felt bullied by them.

    To reiterate:​

    When you want to pitch a temper tantrum↱ on behalf of a person "no longer in a position to defend themselves", so that you might denounce a "rather despicable act of a bully and a coward", it would probably help you look a bit less ridiculous if your complaint was true. For instance, if that person can answer for herself, but does not want to, and receives adjudication aiming to fulfill her wish, it is absolutely bogus to try and pass that off as "a person who is no longer in a position to defend themselves".

    You don't get to feel bullied. Not when self-righteous, bullying dishonesty is your gig.


    I don't know what part of this is confusing to you: When you (1) throw a pretentious temper tantrum based on false assertion of fact, (2) demand a short answer, and then (3) go out of your way to send a harassing PM when that demand is fulfilled, it's true, I have exactly no sympathy for a two-bit, wannabe bully crying about people not appreciating dishonesty.

    You did that, Ophiolite. You asserted false facts as the basis of your petulant tantrum. So, no, you can cry like all bullies do when people stand up to them, but you're not getting any sympathy from those you aim to abuse.

    • While their intentions may be sincere their posts come across as knee jerk reactions.
    Their misinterpretation of my posts and those of mtf is not accidental. I view it as a deliberate character assassination based on who knows what.

    Reiterating the point I made at the outset, why are you so utterly unable to support your arguments with evidence? To wit:​

    • Should people not compete? If catcalling gets to you, if it throws you off your game, it means it is an effective strategy for winning the competition against you (the competition can be about anything from getting the job that is currently yours to getting your attention). (#425↑)

    • Well, then it could be something else he wants, some resource that he believes she has and he lacks. That resource can be material or psychological. (#429↑)

    • If I was in the position where I saw a beautiful woman, someone who attracted my attention, and I were a young single man, if I really wanted to get to know her, I might try opening a dialogue with a compliment, risking rejection on the gamble that she might respond in kind. (#436↑)


    This is among the rape advocacy you're throwing in with: "Their misinterpretation of my posts and those of mtf is not accidental". The only affirmative argument mtf made until #672-ff↑ was rape advocacy. And that last tantrum before mtf ducked out without ever answering the issues is nothing but straight-up sexual harassment.

    • If their intent is to promote the safety of women from predatory men they are going the wrong way about it. Defaming the motives and beliefs of persons on the same side of the fence because they ask awkward questions, or do not align 100% with their views is despicable and cowardly and ignorant.

    Again, this is one of those occasions when it would behoove you to actually have an argument. Can you support your accusation of, "Defaming the motives and beliefs of persons on the same side of the fence because they ask awkward questions, or do not align 100% with their views is despicable and cowardly and ignorant"?

    See, that's the thing; you might disagree with the case I present, but you offer no evidence of your own.

    • Their actions, their words and their attitudes do their cause, their reputations and this site, no favours. They disgust me.

    Yes, we understand that opposition to misogyny in general, sexual harassment in particular, and rape advocacy especially disgusts you. And if you really want to bawl about misinterpretation, try making a case.​


    ―you have your answer.

    I understand that you call me a nasty piece of work because you are either unable or unwilling to deal with facts, truth, or reality.

    If you have a case to make, then make it.

    If you have a case to make, then make it.

    It would probably serve your ostensible purpose better if you actually made a case instead of just screeching like that.
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Is this not you?

    The irony of this is that you were commiserating with someone who was being called out for their posts and frankly, ideology, after their first entrance to the thread saw her post this as someone she deemed to be a "spiritually superior man":

    Prabhupada: In this regard, the word vikhyatam is very significant. A man is always famous for his aggression toward a beautiful woman, and such aggression is sometimes considered rape. Although rape is not legally allowed, it is a fact that a woman likes a man who is very expert at rape.
    Purport SB 4.25.42
    Prabhupada: When a husbandless woman is attacked by an aggressive man, she takes his action to be mercy. A woman is generally very much attracted by a man’s long arms. A serpent’s body is round, and it becomes narrower and thinner at the end. The beautiful arms of a man appear to a woman just like serpents, and she very much desires to be embraced by such arms.
    The word anatha-varga is very significant in this verse. Natha means “husband,” and a means “without.” A young woman who has no husband is called anatha, meaning “one who is not protected.” As soon as a woman attains the age of puberty, she immediately becomes very much agitated by sexual desire. It is therefore the duty of the father to get his daughter married before she attains puberty. Otherwise she will be very much mortified by not having a husband. Anyone who satisfies her desire for sex at that age becomes a great object of satisfaction. It is a psychological fact that when a woman at the age of puberty meets a man and the man satisfies her sexually, she will love that man for the rest of her life, regardless who he is. Thus so-called love within this material world is nothing but sexual satisfaction.

    And if that wasn't enough, mtf then posted this:

    -“…woman has no independence, because they cannot keep their independence---it is not possible.”
    -“By nature they are weak…”
    -“In the Western countries, the women are given freedom like man, but that is unnatural.”
    -“So, woman—the conclusion is that women are weak.”
    (SB Lecture, Los Angeles, 11/30/73)

    -“Independence for women means they become like prostitutes.”
    -“Women cannot do anything independently. To give them independence means to create some trouble.”
    (SB Lecture, Los Angeles, 5/19/72)

    -“Women are inferior to men, and… men are given full charge of the women.”
    -“Women are supposed to be less intelligent.”
    (TLK 5)

    -“Women should not be given freedom. Like a child, she is not given freedom.”
    (SB Lecture, Los Angeles, 7/11/74)

    -“It is found that the brain substance in man is found up to 64 ounce. They are very highly intellectual persons. And in woman the brain substance is not found more than 34 ounce. You’ll find, therefore, that there is no very great scientist, mathematician, philosopher, among women. You’ll never find because their brain substance cannot go.”
    (BG lecture, Hawaii, 2/3/75)

    And on and on it went.

    So mtf was correctly called out for that post and several others after, which saw mtf defend sexual harassment repeatedly. mtf complains about being called out for rape advocacy and sexual harassment and general misogyny. And you respond how?

    How awful for mtf to post things like "A man is always famous for his aggression toward a beautiful woman, and such aggression is sometimes considered rape. Although rape is not legally allowed, it is a fact that a woman likes a man who is very expert at rape." and deems the man who says this as being "spiritually superior", and to be called out on it. This makes us bullies and this makes us people who called mtf names... Three staff members and multiple other posters attempted to get mtf to actually explain him/herself because what mtf was saying was so questionable. mtf refused to on every occasion and continued to post things that were deeply misogynistic and by the end, had insinuated that I was some kind of whore who got off on being sexually harassed. This is the person you threw your hat in for. Not to mention your first posts in this thread saw you attack another member and throw your hat in with the other well known misogynist.

    So how are we, after that spectacular entrance to the thread by mtf, which saw mtf correctly labeled as a misogynist, to interpret your defending mtf because we dared to suggest that what mtf was posting was pure misogyny? Or do you think that advocating raping women and considering women inferior is not misogyny? Just out of curiousity.. How do you think we, and by 'we', I mean the three staff members who engaged mtf on the blatant misogyny being shown by mtf, and the numerous members who engaged mtf on the blatant misogyny, should have responded to mtf?

    What is clear here is that you were not so offended by the other people who also correctly took umbrage at mtf openly advocating rape and sexual harassment of women. For you, this was personal and continues to be so. Worse still, you were not offended by mtf's posts. But you were offended at those of us who called mtf out on it.
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Because that's just the kind of guy that you are?

    I mean, really, who does that? Who goes out of their way and PM's people and says things like that? It's not the first time and it probably won't be the last time.

    But really, who does stuff like that? And you complain about being bullied? For what? For being questioned for the questionable things you said? Poor you! See, this is a discussion forum and your words matter. When you openly defend someone who had just advocated rape and sexual abuse and harassment because that individual was being called out for blatant and dangerous misogyny, people will connect you to that person. People will assume that you are defending this for a reason.. When you dismiss the concerns of women, as you have done repeatedly, and deemed street harassment, that women feel, to be public communication that women have no right to demand it not happen, then people will make assumptions based on those words and your argument.

    So you can feel bullied all you like. Just consider what the rest of us felt when we had to deal with your continued personal abuse and watching you jump up and down to defend someone who had just praised rape advocacy and sexual harassment. Then of course your abusive PM on top of it.

    And this is going to help you how?

    Do you help women and children, and men for that matter, by dismissing what they tell you is the problem?

    Do you help them by refusing to listen to what they have to say?

    Do you understand that dealing with misogyny does not mean that all men are demonised? Do you understand that when women openly tell you what the problem is, that we are not painting all men this way? Do you understand that when women and girls tell you they feel unsafe walking on the street, that they are not asking you for permission to feel threatened and unsafe? Remember when you dismissed the very real threat that we face on the street, during the day, when you declared that women would be entitled to feel threatened if that happened to them in a dark alley at 2:00am, as though they are not entitled to feel threatened when it happens to them in broad daylight on a busy street? Do you understand that women who are harassed, attacked, raped, assaulted and even murdered, are not being turned into victims at 2:00am in a dark alley, but on public and often busy roads as they are going about their day? Do you have any idea how dangerous your dismissal of our concerns actually is? What the repercussions for advocating this kind of belief happens to be for us? Do you understand that responding to our concerns about street harassment and giving examples of the harassment we face, by accusing us of stereotyping men is not helpful to us?

    Do you help women when you openly defend someone who is posting rape advocacy, praising sexual harassment and misogyny? Is that how you are working to achieve safety and security for us? Can I ask, can you stop doing this please? Because what you are doing is not helpful to us. Nor is what you are defending keeping us safe. Quite the opposite really.

    I am touched. Really. I can safely say that you do not know me, Sir, and for that I am grateful.

    Put simply, you are the guy who threw himself down for a person who was posting advocacy for rape and abuse of women. You think I am unpleasant for calling that person out for praising rape advocacy and sexual harassment and misogyny? I can only say that I consider that to be a compliment. Because anyone who supports and defends a person who posts crap like that is not someone I would want knowing me.
    Pantaz likes this.
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Misty Watercolored Something

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Click for guns.

    Maybe you can help me with something: I have this nagging feeling I've seen this before. Something about you, me, and others protesting the idea that women should have to be on guard against rape at all times around all men, and an objection that we have no right to demonize all men.

    And why the hell does a hand grenade keep coming to mind?

    I tell you now, and I won't tell you twice where, when, and how I got some bad advice. I never thought I could handle a girl with guns, and let me tell you, you can bet that I'm not the only one―oh, no:

    "Stand tall, don't think small, and don't get your back against the wall. Shoot straight, I can't wait aim to for the heart and fire away."

    I come around; I understand today shoot the target now―I'm gonna have my way. Everybody said don't go messin' with a girl with guns: "They don't need you, they don't love you, they couldn't need any more, no."

    "Stand tall, don't think small, and don't get your back against the wall. Shoot straight, don't wait to fire away.

    An innocent bystander who forgets to look both ways, and who never tries to understand her, won't feel the heat 'til it's too late.

    (In truth, this is illustrative: Compared to everything else, Tommy Shaw is actually quite progressive, but I can also tell you that over the years pretty much everybody I ever knew who liked the song just liked the idea of "girls with 'guns'", and ignored the part about the song being a tale of bad advice. Same album, try "Little Girl World"↱, or have I ever sent that one to you? To the one, it's horrifying; to the other it was apparently really quite easy to miss the mockery, especially compared to the bizarre apologia for apparent sexual harassment, "True Confessions"↱, which in its turn at the very least verges on stalking, or, Hannah save us all, "Are You Ready for Me?"↱, which is so damn menacing it probably ought to be avoided entirely. No, seriously, it's one thing to boast about dominance and conquest of a woman, but to tell her? And, yeah, this is my youth. I know exactly what he's referring to; by the standards of the day, and all that. But holy shit, it's just fucked up to look back from our twenty-first century vantage and wonder at how easy it was to miss at the time because ... you know ... that's ... just the way ... er ... ah ... mumble, murmur, groan.)
  19. Bells Staff Member

    At the time, people protested at the thought that women had the right to not feel in danger of rape. In other words, some were advocating that we should live our lives, expecting that this could happen to us and to take all necessary precautions. It was around the time I was admonished for failing to prevent being raped in my own home because I could afford to hire private security guards, have vicious guard dogs and I should have been sleeping with my phone, if I truly wanted to prevent my own rape. The implications of which came down to my failing to take these apparently normal precautions, meant that I had failed in some way. After all, if I really wanted to prevent being raped, I should have gone above and beyond and hired private security guards, gotten vicious guard dogs and slept with my phone, because my finances allowed me to do so.

    My protesting against these ridiculous measures, my demands that I should not be made to live in fear, and their comments about rape prevention which in reality amounted to women having to treat all men as potential rapists, meant that I was demonising all men or painting them with the same brush. In short, my refusal to live in fear and not apply the rape prevention policies they came up with - which would see me and women view all men as potential rapists - made me a bad person because a) I failed to prevent my own rape and b) if I applied their rules on the matter, I would be treating all men as rapists. To which, there is no win/win for me. I either failed as a woman or demonised all men.

    The irony of this kind of prevention advocacy is that it forces women to view all men as being potentially dangerous. So the advice was that I live that way. But if I did, then I would be accused of demonising all men. And if I did not live that way, then I am failing as a woman to prevent being raped.

    At no time do these individuals consider that perhaps the men who behave this way are wrong.

    Which brings us to this thread. For all those who have defended street harassment and sexual harassment, deeming it ridiculous that men should not have the right to sexually harass women this way, because it is in public and women do not have the right to not be spoken to in public, they completely lessen the real harassment that women and girls face on a day to day basis.

    It is interesting to me, because in a discussion about men harassing women, some male participants in this thread are more upset about how it makes them look. The #notallmen applies here. Instead of addressing the issue that some men behave this way, they are more concerned in defending their rights and the rights of all men, as though our rights to not be harassed is somehow less important, or less worthy of consideration. So the subject inevitably switches from discussing the problem of street harassment to addressing the anger and feelings of some male participants who feel aggrieved that women are sexually harassed. Not because of the sexual harassment, mind you, but because of how they perceive it makes them look.

    How the woman feels about how she is approached on the street is dismissed, because if a guy sees a pretty girl, it's his right to tell the girl he thinks she is pretty and how her looks make him feel. The objectification of that woman comes well behind the right of the guy to objectify her in this way. We are told that this is a compliment. When we respond and say that it isn't a compliment to be objectified this way, that it isn't a compliment to have strangers look at us this way uninvited and foist their opinions on how we look this way, we are dismissed. We are told not all men. Because we apparently do not know this already? We need to be told when it is harassment and when we should feel threatened?

    Ironic, isn't it, in a thread about misogyny, some men are telling women when they should feel women have a right to feel threatened or harassed, utterly dismissing the reality that women face. Ignoring the real danger of street harassment, because they are more offended about their personal feelings. That street harassment is downright dangerous is not important. The personal feelings of some of these men becomes a bigger priority.

    So how can we discuss the very real issue of misogyny? It would help if some men did not make it about them.
    Pantaz likes this.
  20. Confused2 Registered Senior Member

    UK news 13th July 2016...
    Nottinghamshire Police records misogyny as a hate crime
    If anyone is interested and can't access the content I'll copy it out.
    It only applies in the region of one police force of (of 43) in the UK.
    Anywhere else (and probably there too) you will either get laughed at or told to keep a note of the times and places. That's it. If the police get the guy's name and address - guess who gets the police protection.
    My wife was 'stalked' 20 years ago but I doubt if anything has changed.
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I didn't allude to intentions; I directly included them in my little list. See above.

    I thought what I was suggesting was fairly obvious: that the context is important in deciding whether a particular course of conduct or behaviour is a compliment or harassment. Unfortunately, many people (read 'men', mostly) are not clued-in enough to other human beings (read 'women', mostly) to be able to intuit the difference.
  22. pluto2 Valued Senior Member

    I can't get a girlfriend or sex no matter what I do.

    In fact, I just can't get any form of affection or positive responses from women at all. I also don't have any good friends.

    Constant rejection from women and my inability to make any friends has many times brought me to the brink of suicide.

    I'm also facing other difficulties in life in addition to my inability to get reciprocal affection from women.

    I'm probably going to prison for a long time for tax evasion (failure to pay taxes in time) as well as other small crimes.

    Also my physical health is not good at all and I have many health problems but I can't get treatment because I don't have the money and legal problems prevent me from getting treatment for my health problems.

    Sometimes I wonder what is the point of being alive at all when all the world throws at you is shit after shit.
  23. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    That's some pretty heavy stuff.

    Maybe it should've been a different thread starter.

Share This Page