Misogyny and the Conservative Tradition

[iceaura]

Well, "bitch" kind of always just meant a female jerk. At least that's how we used it when I was growing up. "Asshole" would have been the male equivalent.

Not gender specific, though - so missing the issue here. But more than that, not a word used to categorize men who violate someone's standards of social behavior in general. A kind man, a generous man, a man well liked by his peers, would not be categorized as an asshole because he got drunk and stupid in a bar, as the woman above.

The world is divided into women and bitches, blacks and niggers, hardworking Mexicans and spics - but not men and assholes, eh? The equivalence is not really there.

But it is very important to "conservatives" that there be such equivalence, somehow, somewhere. Why?

 

[madanthonywayne]

Well, yeah, but when I was growing up—and I don't think I'm unusual in this regard—"jerk" was a word my parents allowed me to say, and "bitch" was a cuss word. Perhaps it was different where you are, but I'm pretty sure that around here, my parents were hardly prudish on that count. Indeed, as far as I can tell, theirs was a pretty normal standard on that count.

And "asshole" is not gender specific. A woman has an asshole, too.

How is "jerk" gender specific?

I believe the dearth of male gender specific insults in the English language derives from the tradition that when gender is not specified it is assumed to be male. Thus, when you say asshole or Jerk, everyone assumes you're talking about a man.

So, following that convention, there is no need for male specific insults. However, when one is specifically insulting a female or females in general, it is necessary to use a gender specific insult to avoid the automatic assumption of male gender.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I've called a man a bitch before.

 

[iceaura]

I believe the dearth of male gender specific insults in the English language derives from the tradition that when gender is not specified it is assumed to be male. Thus, when you say asshole or Jerk, everyone assumes you're talking about a man.

Sounds about right. So you argue that such misogyny is built into a conservative viewpoint, as traditional usage and conception, and that explains its association with modern conservative ideology.

I've called a man a bitch before.

Famous insult, attributing not only flawed nature but - worse and worse - feminine flawed nature, doubly flawed. You can get something of the same punch by calling a Mexican a nigger. That would not imply a lack of bigotry on your part.

 

[billvon]

I think you have a misconception here that I tell those women to their faces that they are bitches. I simply avoid them.

Hmm. Generally in my book calling someone names behind their backs is worse than saying it to their face. Perhaps you were brought up differently.

Yes according to my own standards of behavior women should not act this way. You yourself have a standard of behavior for such women. Everyone does. This is a forum and we have discussing how we feel and how we see others in our own perception. Do I force those women to act according to my standards? No I do not. But I do dislike such women.

That's where we differ. I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't harm other people. Want to get tattoos over every inch of your body? OK, whatever you like. Want to join a nunnery? That's fine too. Just don't try to tell other people they should be all ink (or should never have sex or whatever.)

 

[youreyes]

Hmm. Generally in my book calling someone names behind their backs is worse than saying it to their face. Perhaps you were brought up differently.



That's where we differ. I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't harm other people. Want to get tattoos over every inch of your body? OK, whatever you like. Want to join a nunnery? That's fine too. Just don't try to tell other people they should be all ink (or should never have sex or whatever.)

You are twisting my words again. People can do whatever the fuck they want to. I don't tell anyone about anyone behind their backs. We are discussing here how we feel about women and how their actions impact our judgement of them. You see drug addicted mom the same as mom who shows kids the healthy foods to eat? FINE WITH ME. You marry and go hang out with such a woman, I will hang out with a woman who doesnt do shit like that.

You are a guy or girl? My guess your a girl, in which case you choose men based on their actions and how they behave. Or are you hypocritical enough to tell me that you are ok with someone dressed in shabby clothes and goes around picking his nose? You have your "ideal" guy in mind and you are choosing guys based on this concept.

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

I believe the dearth of male gender specific insults in the English language derives from the tradition that when gender is not specified it is assumed to be male. Thus, when you say asshole or Jerk, everyone assumes you're talking about a man.

So, following that convention, there is no need for male specific insults. However, when one is specifically insulting a female or females in general, it is necessary to use a gender specific insult to avoid the automatic assumption of male gender.

I don't specifically disagree with the first paragraph, at least in terms of observable effect, but as Iceaura notes, this only reiterates the alien nature of that creature called woman. That is, there has long been one set of insults for "people", and another for "women".

• • •​

I've called a man a bitch before.

I would echo Iceaura on this point, as well, especially as I have already presented a similar argument—

The point of calling a man a bitch is to denigrate him not only for whatever attitude one finds offensive, but by feminizing him as well.

The point of insulting a man as a faggot is to attribute to him the asserted inherent inferiority of the homosexual.

The point of denigrating a white guy as a nigger is to invoke the asserted inherent inferiority of dark skin.​

—but also add that insofar as a man should not use gender-specific insults against women, the same applies to women insulting men in a gender-specific way. To the other, though, this is one occasion where I unquestionably fall into the category of the empowered class, and that undoubtedly contributes some to why I don't take especial offense to a woman calling me a dick.

 

[Orleander]

Hmm. Generally in my book calling someone names behind their backs is worse than saying it to their face. Perhaps you were brought up differently...)

If you call me names it better be behind my back. I prefer that, because I'm not gonna care. You do it to my face then I'm gonna have to deal with you and its gonna hurt my feelings

 

[GeoffP]

Well, there are female-specific insults... but also male-specific insults. You can't really call a woman a 'dick, or an 'asshole' (despite almost certain possession of the latter). English use of 'cunt' (at least in my ethnocultural experience) is ambisexual or androgynous. No biggie; doesn't really matter. The real issue is discrepancies in pay and upward mobility. I don't think a woman minds being called a cunt so much, so long as her head isn't banging on the glass ceiling as society's shagging her.

That last sentence amused me, inspired me, disgusted me and turned me on. So you really can have your cake and eat it too. And there's another one.

 

[Bells]

I don't think a woman minds being called a cunt so much,

I wouldn't be so sure..

so long as her head isn't banging on the glass ceiling as society's shagging her.

Probably why glass covered skyscraper's are so phallic shaped..

But I am not going to touch that one with a ten foot pole...

That last sentence amused me, inspired me, disgusted me and turned me on.

Like watching a fat person about to dive off the top platform into the pool below?

So you really can have your cake and eat it too. And there's another one.

Uh huh..

 

[youreyes]

See a classic example, sexualizing a "phallic" shaped building with regards to sexual activities involved and touching. That is not taboo.

 

[Tiassa]

The Obvious Point

See a classic example, sexualizing a "phallic" shaped building with regards to sexual activities involved and touching. That is not taboo.

It's also a well established, widely documented psychoanalytical interpretation of history and anthropology. Much like the demonization of feminine aspects within a culture.

 

[billvon]

People can do whatever the fuck they want to.

Agreed!

I don't tell anyone about anyone behind their backs.

Didn't you just post pictures of women and call them bitches?

You see drug addicted mom the same as mom who shows kids the healthy foods to eat?

?? Those are not opposites.

FINE WITH ME. You marry and go hang out with such a woman, I will hang out with a woman who doesnt do shit like that.

?? Again, I don't care what they do. Doesn't mean I want to "marry or go hang out" with her.

My guess your a girl, in which case you choose men based on their actions and how they behave.

You'd guess wrong.

However, I do decide who I want to be friends with/be in relationships with/marry etc based on their actions and how they behave. I also see a difference between "who I enjoy being with" and "what actions are acceptable in society."

Or are you hypocritical enough to tell me that you are ok with someone dressed in shabby clothes and goes around picking his nose? You have your "ideal" guy in mind and you are choosing guys based on this concept.

I'm fine with it. Doesn't mean I'd want to sleep with them.

 

[LaurieAG]

Politics and sex doesn't really come into it if you ask me.

Does anybody think that bullies are ok if they are only of a particular sex or does anybody think all bullies are bad?

If you do think that bullies of either sex are ok then you are most likely chauvanist bullies regardless of your politics or your sex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauvinism

Female chauvinism is the symmetrical attitude that women are superior to men. The term female chauvinism has been adopted by critics of some types or aspects of feminism; second-wave feminist Betty Friedan is a notable example.[14] Ariel Levy used the term in similar, but opposite sense in her book, Female Chauvinist Pigs, in which she argues that many young women in the United States and beyond are replicating male chauvinism and older misogynist stereotypes.[15]

 

[LaurieAG]

Hopefully that message should get through to people with either sides of their brain working and people with both sides of their brain working but it won't get through to people who have no sides of their brain working.

 

[iceaura]

Politics and sex doesn't really come into it if you ask me.

The misogynist conservative traditions in the US have quite a bit of political power, as well as personal influence - I don't know any women whose lives are not specifically affected as women, essentially every day.

If there are some kind of equivalent misanthropic power centers and pervasive influences with that kind of effect on specifically men, I've managed to live my life without ever noticing them.

 

[Tiassa]

A Glimpse Inside Conservative Logic?

A Glimpse Inside Conservative Logic?

Fallacies are everyday occurrences in American political rhetoric, but conservative advocate Tucker Carlson's latest twist seems more like a bender.

Today the Department of Defense announced changes to its rules that will allow women to serve the military in combat roles. This move is seen by supporters less as a dramatic policy change and more as an overdue recognition of the reality facing women in military service; many already participate in combat roles, though the 1994 ban on women's combat service affects benefits and promotions for female service personnel.

While Jeremy Herb of The Hill notes that "most members of Congress from both parties said they supported the Pentagon’s policy change", some conservatives are not pleased. Former U.S. Rep. Allen West denounced the new policy, though as Steve Benen notes, a lieutenant colonel who left the military under an Article 15 cloud for misconduct might not be the most trustworthy in assessing military policy.

Setting aside the infamously delusional Rep. West, though, we come to Tucker Carlson, who leads the pack for his amazing fallacy:

​

Really, you can't make this kind of stuff up.

But the false equivalence of Carlson's desperation is revealing. Or maybe it's just bewildering. In truth, I'm not even sure how to build the syllogism. Perhaps one of our conservative neighbors can help me out: How are military service in combat and domestic violence equivalent?

After all, there are plenty of masculinists who will point out that men, too, can be victimized by domestic violence. Lionel Richie getting thrashed by Brenda Harvey is one famous example; Whitney Houston claiming to be the violent one in her relationship with Bobby Brown. One of Humphrey Bogart's wives literally stabbed him in the back. Al Green came to God after his married lover poured boiling grits on him and then shot herself. Of course, there are the infamous tales suggesting Hillary Clinton used to smack Bill around, and I've even read an assertion that Mary Todd used to beat Abraham Lincoln, to the point that he allegedly pardoned a Union deserter who left the field to marry a girl because he thought the marriage was punishment enough.

But in all that, I don't recall ever hearing any masculinists asserting an equivalence between male soldiers serving in combat and Lorena Bobbit dismembering her husband.

Unmembering?

Unmanning?

Emasculating, to be certain. Quite literally.

So what's up with comparing women in combat to domestic violence? Is Carlson an outlier, or is this brand of thinking shared by a significant portion of our conservative neighbors?

I would generally suggest that anyone, regardless of sex, who signs up for the military ought to expect the possibility of people trying to kill them.

To the other, I don't think I can say the same of someone who falls in love.
____________________

Notes:

Herb, Jeremy. "Panetta officially ends US ban on women serving in combat". DEFCON Hill. January 24, 2013. TheHill.com. January 24, 2013. http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hil...anetta-officially-ends-ban-on-women-in-combat

Benen, Steve. "How not to respond to a breakthrough for equality". The Maddow Blog. January 24, 2013. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. January 24, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2...not-to-respond-to-a-breakthrough-for-equality

Carlson, Tucker. "The administration boasts about sending women to the front lines". Twitter. January 23, 2013. Twitter.com. January 24, 2013. https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/294297551576911873

 

[Asguard]

Tiassa, I know this is going to be slightly off topic for you but you reminded be of a debate held in the federal parliament about removing the "male only" statice from certain jobs in the ADF and one MPs comments that "Australia wasn't ready for women to come home in coffins from war"

My feelings are that if its important enough for young men to come home in a coffin then its good enough for women and if the thought of women coming home in a coffin will stop the public wanting to fight the war then it cant be worth fighting

 

[Tiassa]

On this occasion ....

Actually, Asguard, on this occasion I think it's a fine point. It is perfectly reasonable, at least as I see it, to consider the question of whether raising women on a pedestal is an honor or a denigration.

 

[Bells]

And it continues..

In a stunning and frankly ridiculous move, a Republican law maker in New Mexico has devised of a new way of forcing women to continue with any pregnancy that is a product of rape and issues concerning what Conservatives refer to as "legitimate rape".

The new tactic?

A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico introduced a bill on Wednesday that would legally require victims of rape to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial.

House Bill 206, introduced by state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for "tampering with evidence."

“Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime," the bill says.

Third-degree felonies in New Mexico carry a sentence of up to three years in prison.


[Source]

Yes, that is correct.

Even in cases of incest, if she gets an abortion, she will have committed a crime that can lead to a sentence of up to three years in prison because she is "tampering with evidence".