| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kermo
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Daechidong Waygookin wrote: |
| canuckistan wrote: |
But to clear things up for you about "misogyny" , it's like racism, it can range from the very subtle--like those not-so-funny-when-you-really-think-about-it putdown jokes about women that reinforce negative stereotypes that are "socially acceptable", to the very extreme, such as condemning a woman to death for getting pregnant as a result of rape (rape not being the issue).
And yes, all men have varying amounts of misogyny built into them from the "socially accepted" social/cultural conditioning (and largely unnoticed until it's pointed out) to the extreme which stems from much darker psychological place--fear of loss of control. |
You are a racist. I get that from your logic.
Ill explain.
If misogyny = racism, then white person = man.
If every man has a varying amount of misogyny then every white person has a varyuing amount of racism.
The question being, how much racism do you have in your little heart?
|
You're missing the point here. Canuckistan is not claiming that men are inherently misogynistic, or that it is "in one's heart." Instead, the poster is pointing out that Western culture reinforces a certain amount of contempt for women. There is discrimination against women who don't fit the mold, i.e., those who aren't pretty, thin, small-footed enough  , but there are also difficulties for those who are up to snuff, as they are often harassed, exploited, or presumed to be witless. The prejudice and discrimination is not exclusive to women of course, because I do think that the pendulum has swung back from the "Daddy knows best" culture of the fifties, and I am appalled at the nastiness toward men I see in the media.
As far as your "logic" goes, you're attempting a "reductio ad absurdium" approach, but I would venture to guess that our culture does reinforce racism, by means of patriotism, nationalism and pervasive stereotypes. It's not just "white people" of course (that's a rather racist thing to say, don't you think?).
(edited to clear up the end-quote problem)
Last edited by kermo on Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kermo wrote: |
The prejudice and discrimination is not exclusive to women of course, because I do think that the pendulum has swung back from the "Daddy knows best" culture of the fifties, and I am appalled at the nastiness toward men I see in the media.
|
But what is the source of all this prejudice? Take a look at some women's magazines, and then go do a google search for 'amateurs'. Who is upholding impossible standards of anotomy and fashion, and who likes women who look more like the ones you'd find in your home town - educated women in the publishing industry or horny, bored men? How many women know where to find Betty Friedan or Simone de Beauvoir versus how many know where to find Cosmopolitan or Glamour or Vogue? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paperbag princess
Joined: 07 Mar 2004
Location: veggie hell
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| it seems to me that even though we've repetitively told mr DW that dworkin was but one RADICAL feminist, he seems to think that all feminist are like that. i'm glad he isn't teaching my children reading comprehension. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daechidong Waygookin
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Location: No Longer on Dave's. Ive quit.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| paperbag princess wrote: |
| it seems to me that even though we've repetitively told mr DW that dworkin was but one RADICAL feminist, he seems to think that all feminist are like that. i'm glad he isn't teaching my children reading comprehension. |
Dworkin falls under the umbrella of feminism. That itself discredits the entire movement. Having connections to such hatemongers tarnishes all of feminism. The fact that she is looked up to by some feminists further tarnishes that movement.
Also, do you people seriously wish to suggest that Dworkin's views came to her out of the blue? Just magically popped in her head? I doubt that. Those radical views are a natural extension of the basic feminsit tenet - woman uber alles. She simply extrapolated feminsim to its natural conclusion. The rest of the feminist movement is on the same continuum, all that difers is the extent to which people take it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daechidong Waygookin wrote: |
| Dworkin falls under the umbrella of feminism. That itself discredits the entire movement. Having connections to such hatemongers tarnishes all of feminism. The fact that she is looked up to by some feminists further tarnishes that movement. |
Completely wrong. The fact that a movement encompasses a wide range of extreme viewpoints does nothing to tarnish the movement as a whole - what it does in fact exhibit is that there is no single party line, and hence all who use a term like "feminazis" are showing the vast extent of their own cluelessness.
Not really sure of your reasoning - do we just all of the political left by the actions of the Red Brigade and the Weather Underground? Or the political right by the actions of Tim McVeigh and the racist separatists up in their enclaves in Idaho? Movements as such have no formal gatekeepers, and our society would not be a free one is such gatekeepers existed.
For a guy who uses the word "logical" and cites The Age of Reason, you are having a hard time with the thought processes yourself, it seems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daechidong Waygookin
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Location: No Longer on Dave's. Ive quit.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Since when is the left a movement? Left wing is a term used to describe one's political leanings. There is no leftist movement. How stupid is that? The left is concerned with a whole wide range of issues, while feminism IS a movement because it shares a common goal - the emancipation of women and the gutting of rights for men. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casey's moon
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: Daejeon
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DW, you agree with the women's rights movement but not with feminism? Did I read that right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daechidong Waygookin
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Location: No Longer on Dave's. Ive quit.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| casey's moon wrote: |
| DW, you agree with the women's rights movement but not with feminism? Did I read that right? |
Bingo.
I agree with establishing 100% equal rights for everyone in society, regardless of gender, race, creed, religion, etc.
I do not agree with feminism which is a movement that does not want to establish equality and has nothing to do with women's rights in the context of a just and equal society. It wishes to establish a woman-dominated society and gut the civil rights of men.
Feminism isnt about women's rights. Its about the right of women to strip the rights of men. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crazylemongirl
Joined: 23 Mar 2003
Location: almost there...
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daechidong Waygookin wrote: |
I do not agree with feminism which is a movement that does not want to establish equality and has nothing to do with women's rights in the context of a just and equal society. It wishes to establish a woman-dominated society and gut the civil rights of men.
[Feminism isnt about women's rights. Its about the right of women to strip the rights of men. |
Feminism is exactly about equal rights. You seem to take one small part of feminism and tar it with the same brush just because a minority of authors decide that they hate men. It's like saying that Kim Jong Il is the poster boy for socialism. When there are so many variaitions on both the ideolgoy of both political philsophies it's a tad simplistic to say author X said this then all of the feminsits/socialists think that.
Just because feminists reject the patriachy doesn't mean that we want to replace it with the matricarchy as it just replaces one opressor with another. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kermo
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Looks like the majority of this debate has been about DW's stubbornness in asserting his own definition of the word, contrary to popular and reasonable usage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daechidong Waygookin
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Location: No Longer on Dave's. Ive quit.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crazylemongirl wrote: |
| Daechidong Waygookin wrote: |
I do not agree with feminism which is a movement that does not want to establish equality and has nothing to do with women's rights in the context of a just and equal society. It wishes to establish a woman-dominated society and gut the civil rights of men.
[Feminism isnt about women's rights. Its about the right of women to strip the rights of men. |
Feminism is exactly about equal rights. You seem to take one small part of feminism and tar it with the same brush just because a minority of authors decide that they hate men. It's like saying that Kim Jong Il is the poster boy for socialism. When there are so many variaitions on both the ideolgoy of both political philsophies it's a tad simplistic to say author X said this then all of the feminsits/socialists think that.
Just because feminists reject the patriachy doesn't mean that we want to replace it with the matricarchy as it just replaces one opressor with another. |
Again, feminism has nothing to do with equal rights. You are confused.
I never said Dworkin is a poster child for feminism. Never. What I said is that Dworkin is a natural and logical extrapolation of feminsm's tenets. She is just furter along the same continuum. Make no mistake about it, she is on the same continuum. The fact that she is the extrapolation of feminism's ideas shows how evil those ideas are. Vile vile stuff.
I am not stubborn about the definition of feminism. I value the importance of precision. Without precise usage of terms we soon devalue those terms. I insist on precision because, unlike many of you, I harldy touched any humanities courses in my university time. I have a precise mind shaped by science and unlike you, I value precision.
feminism has nothing to do with equal rights. Women's rights perhaps but certainly not EQUAL rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JongnoGuru
Joined: 25 May 2004
Location: peeing on your doorstep
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Right! I know exactly what you're talking about. You know, Hitler gave fascism such a bad name... I mean, I can't even call myself a nationalist-socialist without people arching their left eyebrow and breaking into the silly goose-steps. It's suffocating... I feel suffocated.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Daechidong Waygookin wrote: |
| Since when is the left a movement? Left wing is a term used to describe one's political leanings. There is no leftist movement. How stupid is that? The left is concerned with a whole wide range of issues, while feminism IS a movement because it shares a common goal - the emancipation of women and the gutting of rights for men. |
kermo :
| Quote: |
| Looks like the majority of this debate has been about DW's stubbornness in asserting his own definition of the word, contrary to popular and reasonable usage. |
kermo speaks truth. Gonna cut my losses on this guy and decide better places to spend my time and energy. DW, do a little research, just a little, and try to make a case for what you say, and maybe a conversation is possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swiss James
Joined: 26 Nov 2003
Location: Shanghai
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| When you're disussing something with someone whose entire goal is to keep the argument going for as long as possible, how are you ever going to get anywhere? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peppermint
Joined: 13 May 2003
Location: traversing the minefields of caddishness.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Swiss James wrote: |
| When you're disussing something with someone whose entire goal is to keep the argument going for as long as possible, how are you ever going to get anywhere? |
yeah, I've got better things to do- like herding kittens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
