Feminism or Misandry?

[ronthenekred]

That is true, albeit a different matter. There is a slippery slope from dislike to hatred, and many a ‘disliker’ may in reality be acting out a self-defence mechanism by attacking those whom s/he finds unsettling.

 

That is not the same as indifference, though. You can have ‘no opinion’ on certain matters; being neither a ‘liker’ nor a ‘disliker’. I think many people feel this way about a broad array of subjects. ‘War in Syria? Well, if they have to. Just leave me out of it.’

The same goes for the ‘battle of the sexes’, as it used to be called. ‘Women’s rights? Well, I don’t really feel involved, but why not, eh? Just leave me alone.’

That should not be misconstrued as hatred. It is merely disinterest.

 

None of my examples have I equated with hate. Misogyny for me is about fear. The misogynist more than likely hates himself, but his fear is much stronger, burying hate in the unconscious.

 

Quite simply he just doesn't have the tools or social skills and becomes very unattractive or very manipulative to the opposite sex.

[Eccentric]

None of my examples have I equated with hate. Misogyny for me is about fear. The misogynist more than likely hates himself, but his fear is much stronger, burying hate in the unconscious.

 

Quite simply he just doesn't have the tools or social skills and becomes very unattractive or very manipulative to the opposite sex.

 

Then you are talking about biological mechanisms. It remains to be seen how focussed upon the opposite sex a misogynist is, and whether he actually has some kind of complex about it. I guess that would lead to disagreeable situations for such a person, in that he would be repressing some kind of urge, rather than consciously acknowledging it whilst not acting upon it.

 

I enjoy your ruminations; they make one think. On a different note, however, I have to make the office on the morrow. Goodnight.

[Rand Hobart]

Originally Posted by Happ Hazzard View Post

The stuff about "all sex is rape".

 

Do any feminists actually believe that? I've never met any that believe that.

I think you're seeing a problem that isn't actually there.

 

As for most of the feminists you've met being nasty man hating harridans; is this code for them not sleeping with you?

 

 

Really? Well meet one. Quite a famous one in fact who's books are used in lectures in "Gender" study courses in Uni's up and down the country.

 

"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” — Catherine MacKinnon

 

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

[Ridgeway84]

Which bits do you disagree with?

 

It would be hard to agree with the SCUM manifesto. Or gangs of Millie's running around Leeds waving placards during the Yorkshire Ripper period wasting time and resources because the Ripper apparently represented men.

[Cyclone]

OK, they can have it one way, on the surface, because the work has been done by feminists in the past. They can just enjoy the benefits of the Equal Pay Act etc. if an ultra right government then removed those laws or weakened them then women would have to start fighting again in which case they'd be feminists. A chicken and egg situation. Yes the label could be removed but they would be women fighting for women's equality which at present the average woman doesn't believe she has to.

 

Can it be argued that feminism put Castle and Thatcher in place? I don't see any evidence of that. Women would have gained the right to vote anyway without suffragettes.

 

What makes you think that?

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2013 at 07:34 ----------

 

I don’t think anything about women. All I think is that it is a bad thing to be inconsequential, irrespective of gender. If you are against men, you do not deal with them. Where do feelings enter into into it? Feelings are a different matter altogether.

The issue is all about feelings, it's clearly not about rational though, which would be the other possibility.

 

It is really very straightforward. I shall render the proposition more concrete, in the behoof of clarity.

 

1. You make up your mind about a certain group of people. ‘Women? Ghastly little sniggering creatures with pathetic squeaky little voices. They are so stupid they wear shoes in (or on) which they cannot even walk. They annoy me.’

 

2. You identify where this group is. ‘Women seem to concentrate in areas that have many hairdressers, nursery schools and gynæcologists.’

 

3. You develop a strategy for the eschewal of said group. ‘I shall henceforth take care to avoid getting into contact with women, by dint of not interfering with the areas where they are likely to be found.’

 

4. In eschewing the group, your annoyance is alleviated. ‘I am contented in that I now rarely have to deal with women.’

You describe someone avoiding women, I don't really see your point. Although it may be related to your attempt to redefine what misogynist means.

This is how a strategy works. You devise a plan and you stick to it.

Once your plan is accepted at an official level, i.e., accepted by the majority, you may implement it. In practice, it simply boils down to setting up men-only and women-only pubs, for instance. You could designate one pavement to men and one to women, as is common practice in parts of Israel. It would prevent the vast majority of squabbles and fracas in any town.

No it wouldn't, it would be sexist and discriminatory. Do you actually believe this btw? If so it's a massive departure from what you tried to paint in your OP.

 

But please be consequential. Act the same way you speak. If you dislike men, then avoid them. Any other action is hypocritical.

Feminism isn't about disliking men.

 

 

in-con-se-quen-tial

1. lacking importance

2. not following from premises or evidence; illogical.

 

No, I did not. Quibbling with me over English is a lost battle. For your own good, you should not endeavour. I impart the present information out of a genuine concern for people.

 

You're not imparting information, you're sharing an opinion, a misguided one, and more and more appear to be demonstrating that you dislike women.

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2013 at 07:35 ----------

 

BTW - if you did mean inconsequential, then this makes no sense.

 

And vice versa for men towards women, of course. Just leave one another alone, and act upon your words. It just makes no sense, if you dislike the opposite gender, to share a part of your existence with them. It’s highly inconsequential.

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2013 at 07:37 ----------

 

‘Miso-’ is a prefix which expresses dislike. ‘Gyne’ means female. Misogyny is therefore a dislike of women. Anyone who voluntarily meddles with them is therefore not a misogynist. I really do not see what is so hard to grasp about that.

 

‘Someone else’ is a despicable concept. Only the individual has any relevance. We exist solely as an ‘I’. Hell will freeze over when I ever borrow anything from ‘someone else’. That is equal to a death warrant.

 

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

 

You can believe the word means what you like, but that doesn't alter the reality of what it means.

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2013 at 07:37 ----------

 

Originally Posted by Happ Hazzard View Post

The stuff about "all sex is rape".

 

 

 

 

Really? Well meet one. Quite a famous one in fact who's books are used in lectures in "Gender" study courses in Uni's up and down the country.

 

"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” — Catherine MacKinnon

 

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

 

Is she going to pop into the next forum meeting or something? Reading about is not "meeting".

[Ridgeway84]

What makes you think that?

 

".

 

I've never heard any definite evidence the establishment looked at the suffrage campaign and decided to allow women to vote on that basis. Women gained the vote all over Europe and other nations without suffragettes. More specifically I don't see the interruption of the derby and similar acts as directly influencing anything.

 

However I'm open to persuasion on all subjects bar God.

[Plain Talker]

It would be hard to agree with the SCUM manifesto. Or gangs of Millie's running around Leeds waving placards during the Yorkshire Ripper period wasting time and resources because the Ripper apparently represented men.

 

So, it didn't matter that the women that the ripper murdered or maimed were someones mother, sister, daughter...

 

The the women protesting in the "Reclaim the night" marches were terrified that they could be next for Sutcliffe's hammer? That the women of Yorkshire (and Lancashire) simply were not safe?

 

I have to say I'm appalled by your comments.

 

Do I really have to say that the general attitude of the police (And that of many of the public at large ) was that "oh, these women were 'only' 'prostitutes'..." and either deserved to be murdered, or that they were of little consequence was misogyny, pure and simple?

 

This is proven as such, by the fact that the police only really began to take any real notice of the ripper when Jane McDonald was killed, a 16 year old 'innocent', a woman who was not a prostitute or a 'good- time girl'? (the public''s attitude also changed when she was murdered.)

 

The marchers had a perfect right to demand safer streets, they had a perfect right to be outraged by the attitudes towards women in society at that time.

 

Agreed that not all men wanted to maim and murder women, but misogyny was, and is prevalent in the attitudes of... "A woman out and about at night deserves what she gets"... "They were only prostitutes. Who cares?"

 

Do you have a wife, or a daughter? Do you really think that she should have to live in a society where catcalls are the least they can expect? In a society where it's unsafe for them to even walk to the corner shop for a loaf, without the risk of attack?

 

Here in Sheffield, not long back, we had a young woman of 14, raped, as she walked home from school, for God's sake. Do you think that this is acceptable in a civilised society? Could this young woman not have been your wife, your daughter, granddaughter, God forbid?

[Ridgeway84]

So, it didn't matter that the women that the ripper murdered or maimed were someones mother, sister, daughter...

 

The the women protesting in the "Reclaim the night" marches were terrified that they could be next for Sutcliffe's hammer? That the women of Yorkshire (and Lancashire) simply were not safe?

 

I have to say I'm appalled by your comments.

 

Do I really have to say that the general attitude of the police (And that of many of the public at large ) was that "oh, these women were 'only' 'prostitutes'..." and either deserved to be murdered, or that they were of little consequence was misogyny, pure and simple?

 

This is proven as such, by the fact that the police only really began to take any real notice of the ripper when Jane McDonald was killed, a 16 year old 'innocent', a woman who was not a prostitute or a 'good- time girl'? (the public''s attitude also changed when she was murdered.)

 

The marchers had a perfect right to demand safer streets, they had a perfect right to be outraged by the attitudes towards women in society at that time.

 

Agreed that not all men wanted to maim and murder women, but misogyny was, and is prevalent in the attitudes of... "A woman out and about at night deserves what she gets"... "They were only prostitutes. Who cares?"

 

Do you have a wife, or a daughter? Do you really think that she should have to live in a society where catcalls are the least they can expect? In a society where it's unsafe for them to even walk to the corner shop for a loaf, without the risk of attack?

 

Here in Sheffield, not long back, we had a young woman of 14, raped, as she walked home from school, for God's sake. Do you think that this is acceptable in a civilised society? Could this young woman not have been your wife, your daughter, granddaughter, God forbid?

 

You're appalled as you've chosen to read so much into them. The only way to catch the ripper was total support for the police operation. Getting angry because the top detective advised women to stay off the streets alone at night was stupid. Stating that men were the problem and there should be a curfew for them was ridiculous extremism.

 

By using up police time and resources they only hampered the one body truly trying to protect women. Regardless of opinions of the victims, millions of hours were taken up by thousands of police working 24/7 to catch him. What did the Millie's do? They tried to politicise it as an example of misogyny.

 

The definitive doorstep book on the subject by Bilton makes clear how much effort was put in from the start. It wasn't just a couple of lazy detectives in kipper ties saying "some daft tart's ad it".

 

The rest of your point is emotional and nobody would disagree with it. I'm amazed that someone would actually defend the demonstrators. Were any normal women grateful for their words of wisdom?

[Plain Talker]

I'm a normal woman, and I was grateful that the "millies" as you so disparagingly call them cared enough about making society safer. Same as I am grateful for the CND-ers and the Aldermaston marchers who were so concerned about the safety of the world that they stood up to be counted!

[melthebell]

LOL i love this thread, the obvious few dont half tie themselves in knots in their frothing