3 ms·

Misogyny? Where's the specific hatred of women? If anything, it's (well-placed) misanthropy.

by lwhalen 10y ago

KirinDave 10y ago
" * Stealing the heart of a girl from a guy who abuses her." If you don't understand why this is a misogynistic statement, I think the best advice I can offer you is to research why it might be considered as such. Ask a feminist you know and trust more than me, as a suggested start.
- steego 10y ago
  I'm sorry, but that's a lousy answer. It's lousy because you don't trust him or other people to give your perspective a fair chance. When you tell me, "I'm happy we can reflect publically" and then clam up and punt when someone else asks you to expand, you not only lose credibility, you're also stealing credibility from the ideas you're defending.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    I do not trust the people here to give my perspective a fair chance. You're right. Why would I? But also, I was on the bus and felt a prompt response was more useful than an exhaustive one.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    "I roll my eyes and say, 'because feminism'." I think my degree of investment was entirely appropriate given the new turn of the discourse. But! But but but! As you were kind to me, I have paid it forward as well! I've actually offered an explanation. Investigation of who I am talking to leads me to believe my first suggestion might still have more impact on their thinking though.
- lwhalen 10y ago
  Ahh yes, "because feminism". Why did I even bother to ask? :-)
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    I have a spare moment, so I will do this. I don't expect you will find the argument compelling. 1. The concept that you can "steal a woman's heart from a man" implies a concept of ownership of the woman's heart by the man. Even metaphorically, this is a very toxic sort of thinking. 2. Implying that you should be able to "take possession" of a woman's affection from a man if you find him less worthy only doubles own on the woman's lack of agency in this scenario. That this language is old and from "a different time" is no defense. 3. Implying that this is in fact a good thing because "he abuses her," is a double whammy because it invokes a very negative cognitive resonance with "Why don't those bitches see I am a nice guy" reddit psychology (made famous by the UCSB incident) but also implies that a woman would need rescuing from what the third party man views as abusive because she's not capable of such an escape herself and needs a man to effect said escape. We can talk about how co-dependency makes 3's secondary point more debatable if you're an expert in that subject matter, because it's morbidly fascinating. But yes, ultimately "because feminism." Inasmuch as this sort of talk is at least as "offensive" as implying a man "only thinks with his small head." And while equally offensive, it has far more pernicious effects for women in a society that has so much inertia directed towards removing their autonomy (both of body and mind). Ultimately, I think the author did this by accident. And that accidental misogyny is what I was commenting on. That's what we mean by "internalized". It's so natural that you can use loaded language and actively perpetuate stereotypes without even realizing you're doing it.
    - lwhalen 10y ago
      Tumblr is that-a-way -> www.tumblr.com
      - KirinDave 10y ago
        I do not understand, but figured from your post history that you would not be very receptive to the message.
    - steego 10y ago
      FYI, there was a tongue-in-cheek implication of women as property. Consider the context. I'm making a point that property rights are not an unimpeachable moral imperative. What I was embarrassed about was callously invoking domestic abuse and mixing it with a cheesy heroism cliche to make that point.

Misogyny? Where's the specific hatred of women? If anything, it's (well-placed) misanthropy.

by lwhalen 10y ago

Misogyny? Where's the specific hatred of women? If anything, it's (well-placed) misanthropy.

" * Stealing the heart of a girl from a guy who abuses her." If you don't understand why this is a misogynistic statement, I think the best advice I can offer you is to research why it might be considered as such. Ask a feminist you know and trust more than me, as a suggested start.

steego 10y ago
I'm sorry, but that's a lousy answer. It's lousy because you don't trust him or other people to give your perspective a fair chance. When you tell me, "I'm happy we can reflect publically" and then clam up and punt when someone else asks you to expand, you not only lose credibility, you're also stealing credibility from the ideas you're defending.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  I do not trust the people here to give my perspective a fair chance. You're right. Why would I? But also, I was on the bus and felt a prompt response was more useful than an exhaustive one.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  "I roll my eyes and say, 'because feminism'." I think my degree of investment was entirely appropriate given the new turn of the discourse. But! But but but! As you were kind to me, I have paid it forward as well! I've actually offered an explanation. Investigation of who I am talking to leads me to believe my first suggestion might still have more impact on their thinking though.
lwhalen 10y ago
Ahh yes, "because feminism". Why did I even bother to ask? :-)
- KirinDave 10y ago
  I have a spare moment, so I will do this. I don't expect you will find the argument compelling. 1. The concept that you can "steal a woman's heart from a man" implies a concept of ownership of the woman's heart by the man. Even metaphorically, this is a very toxic sort of thinking. 2. Implying that you should be able to "take possession" of a woman's affection from a man if you find him less worthy only doubles own on the woman's lack of agency in this scenario. That this language is old and from "a different time" is no defense. 3. Implying that this is in fact a good thing because "he abuses her," is a double whammy because it invokes a very negative cognitive resonance with "Why don't those bitches see I am a nice guy" reddit psychology (made famous by the UCSB incident) but also implies that a woman would need rescuing from what the third party man views as abusive because she's not capable of such an escape herself and needs a man to effect said escape. We can talk about how co-dependency makes 3's secondary point more debatable if you're an expert in that subject matter, because it's morbidly fascinating. But yes, ultimately "because feminism." Inasmuch as this sort of talk is at least as "offensive" as implying a man "only thinks with his small head." And while equally offensive, it has far more pernicious effects for women in a society that has so much inertia directed towards removing their autonomy (both of body and mind). Ultimately, I think the author did this by accident. And that accidental misogyny is what I was commenting on. That's what we mean by "internalized". It's so natural that you can use loaded language and actively perpetuate stereotypes without even realizing you're doing it.
  - lwhalen 10y ago
    Tumblr is that-a-way -> www.tumblr.com
    - KirinDave 10y ago
      I do not understand, but figured from your post history that you would not be very receptive to the message.
  - steego 10y ago
    FYI, there was a tongue-in-cheek implication of women as property. Consider the context. I'm making a point that property rights are not an unimpeachable moral imperative. What I was embarrassed about was callously invoking domestic abuse and mixing it with a cheesy heroism cliche to make that point.