Degrees of Misogyny

Tiassa said:
While it is true I have encountered a good number of really stupid notions...
Click to expand...
Don't let him annoy you T, you're straying too far from the obvious Freudian interpretation here.

Wellwisher, and by extension all the men in his world are simply hungry children unable to control their appetite. How hard is that?

Remember, with the rise of Trumpism shallow ignorance is now acceptable, if not de rigueur - PC is out - tell it like it is and all.
 
Boundaries of Futility


Click for something not entirely completely different.​

Randwolf said:
Wellwisher, and by extension all the men in his world are simply hungry children unable to control their appetite. How hard is that?
Click to expand...

Well, right, but the thing that gets me about this one is that not only is it rape advocacy, it's really, really lazy. I mean, if we follow the analogy through, he's wrong: She's supposed to wait until after he gets off to dress sexy.

And, you know, sometimes it's not the stupidity of evil but, instead, the astounding sloth. He's not even trying.

I mean, of all the victim blaming I've ever encountered, "You weren't futile enough", is about as emblematic of the underlying misogyny as one can get without carving it on her headstone.

Freudian is as Freudian does, I don't disagree with your point. But I also find myself wondering at some strange boundary: Isn't this kind of dangerous?
 
wellwisher said:
If women dressed sexy only when they are in the mood for sex, assault would go down. This would coordinate fashion to the female cycle and not the male cycle, giving the women more control due to less false positives.
Click to expand...

Women dress for themselves. I do believe it is a biological device (whether they know it or not). I ran across a an attractive woman who was wearing what looked like huge reflector mirrors (ear rings). I would have looked at her once while passing, but those darn ear rings made me give her a second glance. Women simply exhibit characteristics that attract men. It might not happen on a conscious level, but they do it nonetheless. It's a natural part ( I believe) of human sexuality, and we may not even realize.

As for Hillary, I believe she is as much a politician as is any male.
 
Bowser said:
Women dress for themselves. I do believe it is a biological device (whether they know it or not). I ran across a an attractive woman who was wearing what looked like huge reflector mirrors (ear rings). I would have looked at her once while passing, but those darn ear rings made me give her a second glance. Women simply exhibit characteristics that attract men. It might not happen on a conscious level, but they do it nonetheless. It's a natural part ( I believe) of human sexuality, and we may not even realize.
Click to expand...
So what would you say if that woman was a lesbian?
 
Daecon said:
So what would you say if that woman was a lesbian?
Click to expand...
as I said, women dress for themselves, though I believe it serves a biological purpose. I'm not certain I can put all lesbians in a stereotypical role--some are butch while others are fem. They are not typical women, are they?
 
So what exactly is a "typical" woman?

And while we're on the subject, what is a "typical" man?
 
Going all the way back to the first page:
Bowser said:
I do believe women posses every right that are given men. Why do you ask?
Click to expand...
Tiassa said:
It is misogynist to define women according to men as you have.
Once again: Do you acknowledge that women are human beings and have human rights, full stop?
Click to expand...
In terms of pure semantics, and on face value, Tiassa, you're quite right. That is an important distinction to make.

However, with that little exchange as background:

You have to admit there is a very significant sub-group among "feminists" who argue exactly along the lines Bowser has in your quote without making that same distinction.

As the proponent of absolute and unforgiving equality, it behooves you to argue with equal fervour against misandry, which is also prevalent even in this thread. Without that, you merely give the appearance of neutrality while having an actual agenda of swinging the scales back the other way. In practice, you're taking sides.

In short, given that you're primarily the one making that argument of absolute equality, and what I've said above, your own arguments are weakened by the appearance of non-neutrality.

Where are you setting that bar, exactly?
 
Last edited:
¡About Freaking Time!

​

Good news, everybody! Alanna Vagianos↱ informs that―

In the British county of Nottinghamshire, street harassment is now considered a hate crime.​

―and this is cause for celebration!

(Er ... ah ... excuse me, guys, this'll only take a moment ....)

Congratulations, ladies: Somebody is trying.

(Okay, okay. Anyway, where was I? Oh, right.)

In partnership with the Nottingham Women’s Centre, the Nottinghamshire police force announced this past Wednesday that misogynistic incidents can be reported to and investigated by the police as “misogyny hate crimes.”​

‡​
​

As Fusion pointed out, hate crimes are broken up into five different categories in the U.K.: Crimes committed due to prejudice against a person because of their race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity. In Nottingham, there are now six categories of hate crimes with the addition of “misogyny hate crime.”

In a statement from the department, the Nottinghamshire Police defined a “misogyny hate crime” as:​

Misogyny hate crime, in addition to the general hate crime definition, may be understood as incidents against women that are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman, and includes behaviour targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman.​

Examples of misogyny hate crime include “unwanted or uninvited sexual advances; physical or verbal assault; unwanted or uninvited physical or verbal contact or engagement; use of mobile devices to send unwanted or uninvited messages or take photographs without consent or permission.”

This designation means the police force will investigate incidents such as catcalling and online harassment like revenge porn and social media abuse as hate crimes.​

And you know, this is just so awesome! Right, guys? This helps, doesn't it? I mean, for all the confusion I hear from my brothers, this can only help, right? Now we know.

Thank you, Nottinghamshire! Much appreciated!
____________________

Notes:

Vagianos, Alanna. "Catcalling Is Now A Hate Crime In This British County". The Huffington Post. 15 July 2016. HuffingtonPost.com. 18 July 2016. http://huff.to/29Q23lb
 
What is irrational about this, is that a hate crime does not even have to have contain hate, to be called a hate crime. If a guy cat calls a pretty woman, he does not do this because he hates her. He does it because he is attracted to her. Yet attraction is called a hate crime? But if a member of black lives matter openly say they hate police, that is not a hate crime, even if says this fuming with hate. Why so much effort to create legal confusion and dual standards? Is this about jobs for lawyers because it will add jobs?

If a guy is cat calling a woman, this is better described as crime of rudeness. So why the need to create confusion? Why are they trying to make the women afraid, with the buzz word, hate, so women react in the fearful way to a clumsy attempt at flattery ? And do women actually fall for this, and if so, what does that tell you?

Such laws should be called hate crimes, because anyone who misleads and confuses, does not do this out of love and concern. They have a contempt for reality and truth. The law projects hate and blames someone else.
 
wellwisher said:
What is irrational about this, is that a hate crime does not even have to have contain hate, to be called a hate crime. If a guy cat calls a pretty woman, he does not do this because he hates her. He does it because he is attracted to her. Yet attraction is called a hate crime?
Click to expand...
First, nobody calls this a hate crime because nobody calls this a crime. Second, it does reflect the oppression of women in culture because the same behavior towards men is not tolerated or promoted. It is viewed as acceptable to treat a woman merely as a thing to be attractive and that is a problem.
But if a member of black lives matter openly say they hate police, that is not a hate crime, even if says this fuming with hate.
Click to expand...
In this case, nobody calls this a hate crime except police officers. If someone says something hateful online, police tend to ignore it unless it is about a police officer. In most countries, it is legal to say that you hate someone. Second, the police have given black people ample reason to hate them. Being a police officer is a choice and it is a job that, in theory, the citizenry should get to direct.
Why so much effort to create legal confusion and dual standards? Is this about jobs for lawyers because it will add jobs?
Click to expand...
Actual hate crime laws are not about trying to get rid of the misogyny and bigotry that you enjoy and that permeates so much of everyday life. These laws are about targeting the crimes encouraged by that the bigotry that you promote.
If a guy is cat calling a woman, this is better described as crime of rudeness. So why the need to create confusion? Why are they trying to make the women afraid, with the buzz word, hate, so women react in the fearful way to a clumsy attempt at flattery ? And do women actually fall for this, and if so, what does that tell you?
Click to expand...
Again, only you call this a crime. And the problem is that someone like you think that it is acceptable to routinely reduce women to only a thing that is or is not attractive. If if only happened in one area, it might possibly be acceptable, but it happens everywhere.

Such laws should be called hate crimes, because anyone who misleads and confuses, does not do this out of love and concern. They have a contempt for reality and truth. The law projects hate and blames someone else.
Click to expand...
You have a contempt for reality and truth. And women and black people.
 
Wellwisher said:
What is irrational about this, is that a hate crime does not even have to have contain hate, to be called a hate crime. If a guy cat calls a pretty woman, he does not do this because he hates her. He does it because he is attracted to her. Yet attraction is called a hate crime? But if a member of black lives matter openly say they hate police, that is not a hate crime, even if says this fuming with hate. Why so much effort to create legal confusion and dual standards? Is this about jobs for lawyers because it will add jobs?
Click to expand...

Hmm ....

If a guy is cat calling a woman, this is better described as crime of rudeness. So why the need to create confusion? Why are they trying to make the women afraid, with the buzz word, hate, so women react in the fearful way to a clumsy attempt at flattery ? And do women actually fall for this, and if so, what does that tell you?
Click to expand...

See, the thing is that you're pretty much making the point. In the first paragraph, you complain about everybody else except the women; in the second paragraph, you make women out to be victims either way because someone has apparently worked to "create confusion" in order to "make women afraid" by teaching them that sexual harassment and belligerence are scary, and apparently we shouldn't do that.

What you've managed to overlook in that is the role of women themselves.

See, unlike you, some of us actually pay attention to what women are telling us.

But they're just this weird peripheral concern in your post, a tool of some sort you seem to think you can manipulate just so in order to make it serve your needs.

You've just written women into the background of their own story; they're mere set pieces, by your narrative. Objects. Things.

Such laws should be called hate crimes, because anyone who misleads and confuses, does not do this out of love and concern. They have a contempt for reality and truth. The law projects hate and blames someone else.
Click to expand...

I mean, you do realize where Nottinghamshire is getting this idea?

Or are women, in your view, just so unimportant to their own existential condition?

The denigration you heap on women in that post illustrates the problem.
 
What does hate mean? Hate is a strong dislike or aversion for something or someone. When a guy whistles at a pretty girl, this is not because he hates her. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying cat calling is welcome or mature. It can be very rude. But it has nothing to do with hate. The motivation of hate is not part of the reality equation. How can something be a hate crime, but lack the motive of hate?

As an experiment, we will have a guy go for a walk with his wife or girlfriend. The guy is told to whistle at a pretty girl as part of the experiment. Will his whistling make his wife or girlfriend feel more secure, since he is expressing hate, dislike or aversion toward that pretty girl? The answer is no. The wife will feel insecure because his whistle means he is attracted to her. After the PC conditioning, maybe the same wife be happy, when her husband whistles at pretty girls, since the PC says this means hate?

I am not anti-woman, but rather I am anti-confusion, using language games and miscues. If you call whistling, hate, when the guy is thinking attraction, the men and women don't see each other. Who teaches and benefits by confusion and division?

Tiassa, some of things you said, about me, contain more hate than a guy whistling at a woman. The definition of hate is a dislike and aversion for someone. What you said is not a hate crime, because I take it in the spirit of debate, even if it contain the emotions of aversion and dislike. Even if you create a hostile writing environment with threats of demerits and expulsion, this is not a hate crime to me, because i am an adult. What would happen if I was successfully conditioned by PC to be afraid under the same circumstances, so my former adult reaction, to a little internet insult, becomes me feeling like I am in danger. Who benefits by that? I would become a moron who can now be made to do other tricks.

I try to teach women to watch out for the wolves, who pretend to help them. Lawyers are looking for more work, with perception of offense creating jobs.
 
wellwisher said:
What does hate mean? Hate is a strong dislike or aversion for something or someone. When a guy whistles at a pretty girl, this is not because he hates her. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying cat calling is welcome or mature. It can be very rude. But it has nothing to do with hate. The motivation of hate is not part of the reality equation. How can something be a hate crime, but lack the motive of hate?

As an experiment, we will have a guy go for a walk with his wife or girlfriend. The guy is told to whistle at a pretty girl as part of the experiment. Will his whistling make his wife or girlfriend feel more secure, since he is expressing hate, dislike or aversion toward that pretty girl? The answer is no. The wife will feel insecure because his whistle means he is attracted to her. After the PC conditioning, maybe the same wife be happy, when her husband whistles at pretty girls, since the PC says this means hate?
Click to expand...
Either way, the husband will be an asshole. Why do you want people to be assholes to women on the street and their own wives? This is why you are so easily identifiable as a bigot.

I am not anti-woman, but rather I am anti-confusion, using language games and miscues. If you call whistling, hate, when the guy is thinking attraction, the men and women don't see each other. Who teaches and benefits by confusion and division?
Click to expand...
Except that the whistling teaches that women are merely objects to be judged by attractiveness. As you are demonstrating.

Tiassa, some of things you said, about me, contain more hate than a guy whistling at a woman.
Click to expand...
As they should.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top