The Glade 4.0

Who, Lex*? I'd have to read his posts to be able to call him out for them, and to do that I'd have to actually reply to something he posted. I don't do either of those because everything he posts is worthless and should just be ignored...

*Just an assumption, I can't imagine who else it would be...

In case you haven't noticed, I've repeatedly pointed out to that same poster that his behavior is totally foolish and likely to get him hurt or killed, and I'm not the only one. Not only is this inidividual known to have some serious psychological issues (making him a poor example) but practically everyone is all over him al the time, and quite frankly his atrocious treatment of women is of less concern to me than his behavior that seems likely to get him stabbed, beat up, or shot eventually.

No one wants to play tit-for-tat, either. You were the one that wanted to play this game of claiming "the women never do this but the men do it all the time" and now when I point out the cases that show this isn't true, it's "playing tit for tat". You keep trying to claim that there's no real difference; that both sexes have a proportion of people that treat the other shabbily, but you also want to cling to this idea that males like to bash women in general while women are all nice and fair-minded and don't. In the process, you're doing exactly what you accuse the men of doing.

Finally, it is completely false that the women on the Glade generally talk about one particular male that's hurting them while reverse is untrue. The males here do not make it a habit to bash women in general. This is your double standard; you're taking examples like Wwen talking about the particualr women he meets (since he doesn't have just one significant other, apparently) and trying to claim it's bashing women in general. That's the double standard - when women talk about one particular male, it doesn't suddenly become bashing men in general.



What's acceptable here is for everyone to say what they damn well think, especially in Rants and Hellfire. That's the reason those two forums exist. If you want Miss Manners debates, there's Heckfire; if you don't want debate or issues that are likely to hurt feelings we have a dozen or so other forums where we don't discuss things like that, counting the game forums.

As for what goes on with TV and the rest, not only am I not off-base, it is also not irrelevant. Like I pointed out, I'm tired of the lecture. You want to say you're offended by what you think is mysogeny? Well, fine; I think your claims are what's supposedly offending you are bullshit.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Apparently it's supposed to be acceptable to say whatever you damn well think, unless of course the thing you damn well think happens to be that someone is being a misogynist.

Miss Manners debate? Interesting choice of words.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

No, it's perfectly acceptable to say that. It's also perfectly acceptable to point out when it's bullshit, like in this case.



Indeed.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Or when it's not. Because this isn't bullshit. There is some seriously misogynistic **** in this thread. It's kind of sad, to be honest.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Such as?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Ok, to be completely honest, some of the things said in this thread about women being lying whores and such offended me.
When I first started reading this thread I thought "wow, thats kind of...crude. Kind of harsh." For the most part, all the guys here behave like guys with the sex talk and such, which is fine, but usually ya'll are pretty gentleman like about it.
Some of the comments in this thread seemed really uncalled for and crass.
I didn't want to say anything because I'm not good at all with the debate-style around here or formulating arguments and rebuttals to defend my perceptions and thoughts and emotions regarding particular topics.
I just wanted to say that I'm not in an uproar over it, but I have found the beginnings of this conversation offensive and rude as a woman who has enjoyed ya'lls company around here for the past couple of years.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

DFK, are you blind or just looking to start more arguments. Reread the thread if you've missed it, stop and pause everytime you read the words ***** or whore or slut, and then think about the concept of misogyny and how it applies there. The use of those words is basically misogynistic. The only time ***** is an appropriate word in polite society is when you are talking about breeding dogs. The other two have no place. The Glade doesn't stop our posters from being less than polite, but I also don't overlook the value of the vocabulary used in determining the underlying character of the person posting.

If you want to start a fight take it to hellfire.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

None of that makes DFK's question any less valid.

Identify what you feel is misogynistic and what you are upset about, and we can proceed from there. Just because someone cries misogyny does not immediately place a burden on the rest of us to change our evil woman-hating ways. Misogyny is a very overused accusation these days, much like racism. A response to the tune of, "OMFG misogyny, men are pigs!" is not conducive to actual discourse, and actually hurts the cause in the long run. It's a lot like the boy who cried wolf in that it takes attention away from real misogyny, where real women are real victims.

I can accept as the premise of discussion that some participants are upset and offended, and that is perfectly fair. DFK has asked why, and over what comments. You see, sometimes when people get upset and offended it is perfectly rational, and sometimes it is not. So are we upset and offended over something reasonable, or are we simply feeling entitled for men to change their behavior and express themselves in a way that's more palatable to our personal sensibilities?

As Diamondeye has pointed out, denigration of men is widespread in our culture and deemed socially acceptable. We have a standard that isn't being applied equally. Clearly this is a big deal to him, and his undergarments are bunched up just as much as Taamar's are. So at this point, when we complain about misogyny, are we actually complaining about the men of this board having the attitude that women are ***** and whores, or are we really just riled up because Diamondeye hasn't folded and conceded the argument to Taamar?

If it's the former, I think you're mistaken, but I think it's a conversation worth having.

If it's the latter, **** all of you. I hope there's another eight pages of the misogyny/reverse-sexism hate-in just for you. I hope all of your underwear bunches up so tight you need the jaws of life to get them out of your assholes. You all deserve one another, and I deserve a sandwich. Enjoy your thread.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Then you admit to having evil woman-hating ways?

To me the misogyny in the thread jumps off the page and into your face. Of course that may be my overreaction, but then again, it may not. DFK! is relatively bright, and I don't see how he could miss it. I took his comment to be baiting Montegue and others so he could jump all over their opinion with his opinion of why they are all wrong. I've seen him do that before, haven't you?

Asking someone to give you ammunition to use against them is lazy and cruel. That is my opinion.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Which of the following is acceptable and reasonable thing to say on the Glade:
Most blacks are violent criminals.
Most hispanics are lazy illegal immigrants.
Most Jews are neurotic misers.
Most cops are power-hungry a**holes.
Most Christians are bigoted morons.
Most men are misogynist jerks.

NONE. I didn't say all or most men were anything... I pointed out that the tone of the thread was a problem and was immediately told that because some women bash men that I have no right to complain when men bash women. When someone says "most/all {group} are {undesirable charateristic}" you should ask yourself: "Is this something I'd be offended by if it were said about someone I care about?". Yeah freedom of speech means you have the right to say what you want, but it doesn't keep you from being a prick when you say it.

Note that if the original post had said "Women who act like this are lying whores" I'd have had no issue with it at all. Even "Every woman in my life is a lying whore" might pass, but 'most women' is nonspecific enough as a category that it includes me, and I am offended at the suggestion that I am likely to be either a liar or a whore until I prove otherwise.

Neither.

I'm legitimately interested to hear the perception from certain individuals as to what is "misogynist" in this thread. Different people have different standards, and identifying where that line lies is useful to furthering debate.



Why? Because you say so?

The definition of misogyny doesn't agree. I won't patronize you by citing the definition of misogyny, but suffice to say that a word by itself cannot fit the definition of misogyny. A word in the context of a sentence could.



So your particular issue is with the politeness of certain words? That's a different debate.

Based upon that standard, you'd be fine if I said, "All women should be in the kitchen where they belong," but not, "damn that ***** is attractive."



I'll do as I please, especially when what I please is to have a rational discussion.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Misogyny is
1) The act of ascribing to women as a group, rather than as specific individuals some undesirable characteristic.
2) The contempt or hatred of women.


CASE: most women are lying whores
Does it classify women as a group? YES
Does it ascribe an undesirable characteristic? YES
Does it display hatred or contempt? YES

CASE: women put their drama on you
Does it classify women as a group? YES
Does it ascribe an undesirable characteristic? YES
Does it display hatred or contempt? YES

CASE: The anger isn't even with women, it's with myself, but it's easier to project it on to women than to feel like **** all the time. If it makes me feel a little bit better, what do I care if some women are insulted?
Does it classify women as a group? YES (as his target)
Does it ascribe an undesirable characteristic? YES (people who's feelings don't matter)
Does it display hatred or contempt? YES


Feel free to go through the Glade and find for me examples of women saying things about men that pass all three tests.

Can you cite a source for this? Wikipedia and the dictionary do not include your first definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misogyny




http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny


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


You are ascribing a definition to misogyny that it does not have.

Proper usage for your first definition would be perhaps bigotry or prejudice. While of course both are undesirable character traits, neither uses the loaded language of "misogyny." As such, choosing to use such a loaded phrase, particularly for uses it is not traditionally defined as containing, is itself a telling thing.

Without a source, let's look instead at your cases from the thread using only the proper definition:



One could disagree with your first assessment and your final. More important is the latter. What about this shows "hatred or contempt?" That's the true issue for misogyny. It is clearly a prejudiced statement, but whether it is hateful or contemptuous is a matter of context. I may or may not agree that it does show those things, but the fact is that your final line should be a "maybe," not a "yes."



In this case one could disagree with your second and final assessment. Again, is "putting drama on you" undesirable? Without further context we don't know. Furthermore, the final assessment is the only one that would convey misogyny, and again that would be subjective. It should again be "maybe."



Interestingly, on this one I'd say that you're not only stretching for your first two assessments, but in fact are simply straining too hard and the assessments aren't applicable. However, given that the final assessment (again, the only one that really matters for misogyny) is one on which most anyone would firmly agree, this is certainly a misogynist statement. Is it prejudicial though (the first two assessments)? I don't believe it is.



Again, given that your first "two tests" are irrelevant, I could probably easily find almost as many statements of misandry as I could of misogyny: nearly none.



See, this was my core point, and thank you for finding one from this thread by the way: truly misogynist statements are incredibly hard to find because attitudes like that are certainly not the mainstream. Prejudicial or bigoted statements, on the other hand, could still be found relatively easily on both sides.

Now, before you (or anyone) tries to hand-wave this away as semantics, let's consider the importance of language, particularly loaded language to assassinate one's character. Is it more harmful for someone to be branded as racist or prejudiced? Neither is desired as a character trait, but the weight of racism is more heavy than that of prejudice. The same is true of misogyny.

But why? Well, for one thing we're all prejudiced. We may not like it, or even admit to it, but we are. It's Khross's oft-cited "otherization." We group people who are not like ourselves, and become prejudiced against them, lumping them into groups and assigned them stereotypes. Is "otherization" wrong? Insofar as it is natural, I don't believe it is, provided we can be self-aware enough to know when we're doing it. If we know we're doing it, we can work to compensate for the bias it generates.

But why is that "better" (for lack of a more appropriate word) than racist or misogynist? Well, for one thing, we all have a mother or a sister or aunt or daughter. The idea that we'd hold them as less than ourselves exclusively due to their sexual organs is relatively abhorrent to non-deviant individuals. The same is relatively true of race, because in modern America we are all likely to have some relative of alternate or mixed ethnicity, or to be of mixed ethnicity ourselves. So again, these words of misogyny and racism hold much more weight than "prejudice" or perhaps even than "bigotry."

Given that, it is important, in my view, to only ascribe them to behavior and statements that actually reflect their definition. Otherwise, we not only risk diluting the word usage (boy crying wolf) until they're no longer useful, we risk undermining our own ability to distinguish between these traits; and for the reasons I mentioned above (and others), those distinctions are important.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

AS I've pointed out, however, the supposedly mysogenistic comment by Wwen can be read as "Most women [I meet] are lying whores". As I've also pointed out, that really indicates that Wwen needs to change his dating habits. I don't see that comment as mysogenistic as I don't see that Wwen is foolish enough to actually think that all women are just like the few he's met in some sort of romance-oriented venue.

I don't see any good reason why the assertion of mysogeny should go unchallanged. Because this is rants? It's suddenly okay in this forum to call anything you want offensive and no one can disagree with you? No one can ask you to explain why you're making your claim?

Then kindly start moving any rant that ends up as a controversial topic to Hellfire.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Except that it doesn't include you because it's in a rant about the women Wwen meets and dates. Are you one of those women? In that case, you may have good grounds to be offended, but not because the comment is mysogenistic. What he said is essentially the same as "Every woman in my life is a lying whore", he just wasn't that careful about wording it. Like I;ve pointed out, it's plainly obvious to me that Wwen is not referring to my wife, so why you think he's referring to you is an open question. I've said that at least twice before this post, yet you still want to ask people to ask themselves if they'd be offended if it was about someone they care about. Maybe if I knew any women Wwen dates I might be on the merits of his assessment, but the fact is that it doesn't apply to any women I know.

Furthermore, no one said you "don't have a right" to complain. What's been said is that your complaints are nonsense and indictive of a double standard. I realize that turning that into "people are saying I don't have a right to complain" is a standard tactic, but that's not what's been said. What's been said is that your claims of mysogeny in this thread are inaccurate, as is your claim of constant mysogeny on this board, which also included the blatantly inaccurate generalization that the men here are unfair generalizers but the women are fair-minded and don't ever do that.

If you want to be offended, fine, but that doesn't mean no one can tell you that you're being ridiculous.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Switch them around

What is mysogyny: The contempt or hatred of women.

How is it displayed: By ascribing to women as a group, rather than as specific individuals some undesirable characteristic. It's more an additional test of the first, which is the true issue at hand.

And I think the definition of 'contempt is relevant:
1. The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn.
2. The state of being despised or dishonored; disgrace.




Seriously? You don't think 'whore' is a term of contempt? Is is something you're OK with wife/daughter/sister/mother being called?


Again, it shows contempt. Scorn.






I can get sucked into the archives quite easily, i know that I've had this 'ARGH, why are there so many guys on the Glade who think it's OK to put all women down?' rant several times. I'll report back when I dig out.




Which is exactly why we should call people out when they call 'most women' lying whores.



I don't believe that it's 'crying wolf' to say 'Hey, your words denigrate women and are offensive'.

He did not state or imply that his statement was limited in any way.

Furthermore, no one said you "don't have a right" to complain. What's been said is that your complaints are nonsense and indictive of a double standard.[/quote]
A number of people agree with me, clearly it's not 'nonsense'. As for a double standard, I've asked you to supply evidence that I allow this sort of thing on the Glade when it's targeted at men.




I never said that all or most of the men here are misogynists, I said that misogyny is frequently tolerated in this board. And I never said that the women were 'fair minded' either, I said that every thread I could find where a woman says something about a man it was about a specific man.



So your claims of misandy have basis, but my claims of misogyny are ridiculous. I see.

When he said "Most women are lying whores" I hardly thought he was talking about most women everywhere. I took it as "most women I've dealt with are lying whores."

_________________
Los Angeles Kings 2014 Stanley Cup Champions

"I love this **** team right here."
-Jonathan Quick

As I alluded to previously, we are on page four of the thread and things have gotten a little fuzzy. Also, are we reacting to a perceived attitude that women have been reduced to sexual cattle in the eyes of the Glade population, or are we defining misogyny to simply mean "not sensitive and feminist enough?"

I have chosen the two extreme ends of the spectrum on purpose.

Now, I will concede that it's sometimes difficult to tell the difference between a move toward genuine discussion and a ploy to bait people. It's especially difficult to recognize that distinction when one is more interested in trying to maintain the illusion of a wise mediator or artificially manufacture a moral high ground from which to cast aspersions on everyone else. While I can not speak for other participants in this thread, DFK's only mistake as of my previous post was in expecting other members of the Glade to act as though they're as smart as they claim to be.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

See, now I'm agitated. Rather than admit that you're ascribing definitions to words that they do not have, especially given my citation of 3 sources and your citation of none, you fail to even flinch in your stance.

Instead, you're creating definitions and applications for words that don't exist. You're making things up to suit your view.

I mean, clearly, using your made up definition of misogyny, it's ok if I treat women poorly and have contempt and hatred for them, as long as I treat them as individuals while I do so.



In what way is this relevant?




To your first question: no. Puritanical ideals indicate it is, and nothing else. To your second question, no. See, that's why it should be a "maybe" and not a "yes," different people do not all hold your standard.



What scorn? The scorn you read into it? Your biases are affecting your interpretation, which means no one but you is responsible.

I'm not really sure what "put[ting] their drama on you" really means, but I read that as telling you about all their problems (drama). I don't view that as being necessarily negative, actually.




Except that, without your pretend definition of misogyny, it is.

You keep calling behavior misogynist that isn't. You're diluting the term, as has the feminist movement for decades, and now, just like racism, nobody really knows what it means.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

His words were hateful and contemptuous towards women. End of story.

The problem with the internet, context is difficult to keep and tone is even harder to get across. I admit I expect misbehavior from DFK! and am rarely relieved I was wrong.

I'd also like to point out that the attitude of you have no right to be offended by that grates. Whether someone has a right to be offended or not doesn't really matter. They were offended, if you care, do something about it, if you don't move on. Trying to explain why someone doesn't have a right to their feelings is a griefer's tactic, nothing more.

Explain the tone, the context, explore why the reader might have taken it the wrong way, that is progress. Telling them they are stupid, and shouldn't feel that way - How would you react? What credibility would you give them?

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Should we take that as you having been unwilling to actually have a discussion about this from the get-go?

Should I take that as you being unwilling to adjust your usage of terminology to actually fit proper usage?

Or, alternatively, should I take that as admitting they were bigoted and prejudicial statements, though perhaps not misogynist?


See, I don't have a problem with calling something bigoted and prejudiced that is so. And it was.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

And perhaps, as you state, it is merely the tone and context of my discussion that you simply do not understand/is not conveyed, rather than some sort of "misbehavior."

Furthermore, misbehavior is itself subjective. What you find as "misbehaving," a derisive and patronizing term, by the way, I (or others) may feel to be not only justified by mandated but social mores I/we have that differ from yours.



I'm not sure if this is directed at me still, but I haven't tried to tell anyone they aren't entitled to their feelings. What I'm saying is that people should be more precise and appropriate in their word choices.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine