Misogyny is disgusting

[OldWiseGuy]

That poor child. Honestly, the mind boggles.



I've asked myself that often as I've encountered it, and I'm not sure I have come up with good answers. I read a book this week, though, (Lundy Bancroft's Why Does He Do That? ) which gives the best account that I've come across. Basically, his argument runs that if you've been raised in an environment, since before you were old enough to understand or remember, that tells you you're better than others and are entitled to be above them/control them, you will believe that message and be honestly wounded and feel cheated when, later in life, your experience doesn't match that. (When you encounter women as equals, or even in some contexts as your superiors, and are not able to control them etc).

There's the link between patriarchy and misogyny; patriarchy provides the context which tells men women ought to behave as men's subordinates, and then misogyny comes as those men believe that message.

I wonder how big a problem this actually is in America.

 

[muichimotsu]

You have stumbled upon one of the greatest truths in the universe.

Except that's not true, you have little to no basis to claim such a thing and cherry picking examples or utilizing black swan fallacy isn't helping either, because females are hardly able to be fit into a box any more than any human can in general.

 

[muichimotsu]

I wonder how big a problem this actually is in America.

The purity culture or the fixation on virginity in general as some value for women? Or perhaps some other problem

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When the anger against a woman is directed at her precisely because she is a woman, why shouldn't it be called misogyny?

I think there's more to it than that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Gender pay gaps.

Aren't those pay gaps closing?

 

[muichimotsu]

I think there's more to it than that.

What more could there be? If I'm angry at a person that happens to be a woman and not because they're a woman, that's fundamentally different than me reducing them to that identity and generalizing them based on prejudice (fitting into the basic definition of misogyny)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Except that's not true, you have little to no basis to claim such a thing and cherry picking examples or utilizing black swan fallacy isn't helping either, because females are hardly able to be fit into a box any more than any human can in general.

There is a biblical basis for the claim.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What more could there be? If I'm angry at a person that happens to be a woman and not because they're a woman, that's fundamentally different than me reducing them to that identity and generalizing them based on prejudice (fitting into the basic definition of misogyny)

Misogyny doesn't occur in a vacuum. A lot of friction occurs naturally because of the differences between men and women, especially as more women enter the workplace in roles usually filled by men.

 

[muichimotsu]

There is a biblical basis for the claim.

And the bible is not taken to be true at face value unless you don't care about the truth rather than feeling like you're in a special group or otherwise focus on obedience versus accuracy. Demonstrate why someone should take your scripture seriously before you assert its authority and question beg

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When the anger against a woman is directed at her precisely because she is a woman, why shouldn't it be called misogyny?

Sure, that's misogyny. So where do we go from here?

 

[muichimotsu]

Misogyny doesn't occur in a vacuum. A lot of friction occurs naturally because of the differences between men and women, especially as more women enter the workplace in roles usually filled by men.

I never said it existed in a vacuum and the conflicts between men and women are as much because of some men having a reactionary attitude, as if women must be inferior to them because men have been in certain sectors for generations. If we're not talking about things that involve more basic physical restrictions (women demonstrably having less muscle mass on average, for one example that's fairly uncontroversial), then the difference is at best individual capacity, because I seriously doubt it's nearly as fundamental a difference that men and women have the kind of intellectual differences people seem to claim

The problem should be demonstrable in itself, not merely using women as a scapegoat for incompetence in a work environment that's stagnated, contempt breeding with overfamiliarity with the status quo

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And the bible is not taken to be true at face value unless you don't care about the truth rather than feeling like you're in a special group or otherwise focus on obedience versus accuracy. Demonstrate why someone should take your scripture seriously before you assert its authority and question beg

The bible contains deeper levels of truth than most understand.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I never said it existed in a vacuum and the conflicts between men and women are as much because of some men having a reactionary attitude, as if women must be inferior to them because men have been in certain sectors for generations. If we're not talking about things that involve more basic physical restrictions (women demonstrably having less muscle mass on average, for one example that's fairly uncontroversial), then the difference is at best individual capacity, because I seriously doubt it's nearly as fundamental a difference that men and women have the kind of intellectual differences people seem to claim

The problem should be demonstrable in itself, not merely using women as a scapegoat for incompetence in a work environment that's stagnated, contempt breeding with overfamiliarity with the status quo

Men and women have profound intellectual differences. In fact in many ways we are a different species. Men are from Mars, women from Venus.

The only way we are intellectually equal is that neither understands the other.

That said women are very good at what they do, but they are not very good at what I do.

Don't negate the fact that many jobs require the 'muscle mass' that only men have. This fact alone limits what women can do, and crowds them into fewer job descriptions. Additionally many employers have to make accommodations for various weaknesses that women bring to the workplace. A good example of this is the common back problems that nurses suffer from moving heavy patients from awkward positions. Male nurses don't suffer this nearly as much.

 

[Paidiske]

God built that sense of entitlement into us. Hard to overcome.

I find that claim almost blasphemous. God did not build sinful attitudes into our being.

I wonder how big a problem this actually is in America.

From what I can see, it looks pretty significant.

Sure, that's misogyny. So where do we go from here?

Perhaps we can challenge the attitudes which lead men to have such unreasonable anger?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I find that claim almost blasphemous. God did not build sinful attitudes into our being.

That's a whole different topic.

From what I can see, it looks pretty significant.

I didn't hear a thing about it from the Dems debate last evening.

Perhaps we can challenge the attitudes which lead men to have such unreasonable anger?

Perhaps a bible verse will help.

Colossians 3:19 King James Version (KJV)

"Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them."

Why would husbands be bitter towards their wives?

 

[Kylie]

I think there's more to it than that.

Such as what?

Aren't those pay gaps closing?

Yes, but not because the people who started those gaps and maintained those gaps are making the change. The change is being fought for.

Sure, that's misogyny. So where do we go from here?

Now, see, this is confusing. This is the second response you've made to what I said in post 300, that when a man directs anger at a woman simply because she is a woman it is misogyny.

The first time you replied, you said there was more to it than that. Now you are just completely agreeing with me. So which is it? Do you agree with me, or do you think there's more to it?

 

[Paidiske]

That's a whole different topic.

No, it's not. We need to be able to recognise the sinful aspect to our attitudes, especially when they are so harmful.

I didn't hear a thing about it from the Dems debate last evening.

I wouldn't know. Most of my interaction with Americans is on CF, and the problem is definitely alive and well here.

Seems that this is a natural tendency.

So what? Are you suggesting we should simply accept it?

 

[Kylie]

Perhaps a bible verse will help.

Colossians 3:19 King James Version (KJV)

"Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them."

Why would husbands be bitter towards their wives?

How about Ephesians 5:22-23? Could that perhaps be why some husbands are bitter towards their wives?

Also, how about if the husbands have been raised in a culture of toxic masculinity, and the only way they know how to deal with problems is with violence?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Such as what?

You don't know?

Yes, but not because the people who started those gaps and maintained those gaps are making the change. The change is being fought for.

Men also fight for higher pay.

Now, see, this is confusing. This is the second response you've made to what I said in post 300, that when a man directs anger at a woman simply because she is a woman it is misogyny.

The first time you replied, you said there was more to it than that. Now you are just completely agreeing with me. So which is it? Do you agree with me, or do you think there's more to it?

Can't you accept both?

Sure there's misogyny. Let's find out why.

 

[Kylie]

Most of my interaction with Americans is on CF, and the problem is definitely alive and well here.

Just realised you are a fellow Aussie! Hope you aren't being affected by the bushfires!