Misogyny as Male Bonding

[Morgana LaFey]

Men use the objectification and denigration of women as a way to "bond." That undercuts any and all efforts by women to achieve "equality" in profound ways that literally NO amount of lobbying or working or wishing and hoping can ever, ever overcome. That makes us "things" whose primary purpose is to serve as a way for men to get closer to one another, having something to share (their hatred -- or at least disrespect -- of women).

I've never this objectification-as-group-bonding so blatantly expressed and demonstrated (yet, it drew no remarks or criticism that I know of) than I did in a clip I saw on Letterman last night of a movie called Deck the Halls. Matthew Broderick and Danny DeVito were in a scene in which they were in the audience watching some sexily-dressed women on an outdoor stage, and shouting sexist insults as a way to impress one another, share something in common (their superiority over women, their inherent "right" as men to shout such remarks at the women), get to know one another better, and, well, bond.

What I found even more alarming and disheartening was that that is exactly how Danny DeVito actualy set up the clip: here are these two wildly different characters in a scene of "male bonding."

I felt like I needed a shower after seeing this, and esp. after hearing DeVito's set-up for the clip.

I see this "male bonding" and plenty of other sexism here at DU too, of course, as I know all of you do. Is there some reason more women don't challenge the rather rampant sexism here?

Oh -- one request. As the male naysayers who simply can't leave this forum alone come in, please just totally, TOTALLY ignore them. It'll drive them so crazy they'll have to leave the forum out of frustration! IOW: don't feed the trolls. Not even one tiny crumb. PLEASE.

[Joanne98]

1. Oh boy, did you hit it on the head. Great subject.. K&R!

[Ian David]

2. See also: Elephant Day Parade by The Beat Farmers

http://www.mp3.com/beat-farmers/artists/3057/display_track_237236

[IndyOp]

3. I challenge sexist posts/phrases as I find them at DU.

I've had generally good reactions when I explain why I perceive it as sexist and what would be acceptable/non-sexist.

It is a long, long term project. I would imagine that there are many, many discussion boards that are far, far worse.

[PSPS]

4. How about this?

You can buy motorcycle shirts with this printed on the back:

[Joanne98]

5. Kick

[etherealtruth]

6. As for the misogynistic posts here on DU

Yes, they are very maddening; I expect so much more from a liberal community; however, they usually come from a minority of posters. I know it doesn't always seem that way, especially when reading a particularly egregious post, but it really is (mercifully) just a handful of idiots.

I particularly freak out when human rights violations against women are "written off" as merely being different from our values or a cultural practice (somehow, implying that it deserves respect). To paraphrase Kofi Anan: human rights are not some "quaint" western construct ... they should apply to all humans, everywhere.

[Morgana LaFey]

7. But the problem with that defense is this

Why don't the "non-offending" men step up to the plate? They don't, and won't. SILENCE CONDONES. They still benefit from sexism they refuse to challenge. Hah! Who says they even notice the sexism, or object to it?

[etherealtruth]

8. I think they often do ...

I am not denying the problem.

I have been frustrated to the point of needing to take breaks from DU; but, I still believe the idiots are in the minority. I have seen many men step up to the plate over the years. Yes, there are many that don't recognize the problem or don't care ... which is why I agree that there is a problem ... I have simply witnessed guys that understand that bias/prejudice/ stereotyping and objectification is wrong.

[Morgana LaFey]

42. Well, actually, you are denying the problem

MY point is that "the problem" isn't just the "idiots (who) are in the minority" but the idiots who don't STOP them. YOUR point is that there is no problem beyond the idiots who are in the minority.

You couldn't be more wrong.

I have simply witnessed guys that understand that bias/prejudice/ stereotyping and objectification is wrong...

...but choose to do nothing about it -- why, exactly?

[etherealtruth]

87. What an unusual response ...

:shrug:

[Heywood J]

11. I'll ask the question of

how that's different from a right-wing radio host asking why we don't see "all those supposedly good Muslims stepping up to the plate"? Group guilt went out a long time ago, and some of us may just choose to pick our battles. If it's yours, that's great for you. It may just not be the concern of everyone. This place has ninety thousand members - many of us think differently.

[Morgana LaFey]

41. You make my point perfectly

You don't give a flying fuck. More than that: YOU BENEFIT FROM SEXISM, from the inequality, from having the inherent Patriarchal-God-given-right to insult women and make yourself and all your male friends "better than" any female alive.

Oh, yeah, you think differently for sure. Yes indeedy.

Here's a clue for ya: Progressives and liberals and even moderate and conservative Dems are supposed to care about oppression -- discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and gender. Men who call themselves progressives but just can't find it in their black little hearts and ugly souls to give a damn about sexism are an embarrassment -- and worse, a DRAG -- to the party and the country.

YOU will never be truly free until you take your boots off the necks of this nation's and the world's women.

[femrap]

9. K & R...

Great topic, Morgana.

When the topic of p0rn comes up, OMG...many males (younger ones, I believe) feel this is their constitutional right.

I never wanted to realize how much men truly hate women, but it is undeniable. Sure, most don't beat their wives/girlfriends....but if they know of a man in their office who is beating his, does the 'good' guy do anything? Rarely.

Sexism is the last 'ism' we have to conquer.

[Fovea]

15. 'many males feel this is their constitutional right.'

Most Porn is covered by a constitutional right.
It is called the first amendment. What part of it should be abrogated for
the sensibilities of some women or men? I beleive this debate is not really about porn. I think it is a cultural imperative last expressed in the Volstead act.

My S/O reads erotic literature. She reads it for writing style and simple titillation.
She occasionally sends me urls. Sometimes I read them, sometimes not. My sweetheart of 10 years does not, as far as I can tell, hate women.
In fact, I believe she holds women in high regard. Pornographic art is not a modern phenomenon. Representations of female genitals(and male) are profuse in folk art around the world.

Like any form of expression, it sometimes pushes hard on boundaries. Some of those boundary lines go over into psychopathology. Son of Sam killed on the instructions of his neighbor's dog. The dog was not the cause. The boy with the bad wiring was the problem.

But liking erotic literature, visual art, song, theater is not about hating women. It is about sex. It could be about celebrating it, exorcising it, or coming to terms with it when it scares or offends you. But Pr0n is not simply about violence, unless you believe all sex to be violence against women.

Let us not in trying to punish the bad dogs, throw out the Rubyfruit Jungle with the bathwater.

[Morgana LaFey]

43. So, do you feel the same way about those postcards showing

lynchings? Is that protected by the First Amendment too? How much harm are you willing to allow under the guise of the First Amendment?

There is such a thing as ABUSE of the First Amendment, and porn and postcards of lynchings, and Howard Stern and Michale Savage are prime examples.

And HOW INTERESTING -- how fucking interessting -- you wander into this thread which wasn't about porn at all, but immediately have to start defending your beloved misogyny pictorialized.

My S/O reads erotic literature.

There is a difference between erotica and porn. Your S/O may or may not know the difference, and may or may not be acculturated to accept woman-hating conditions and situations as "normal." YOU may or may not know the difference. The primary differentiation is mutuality and respect. No one is in a "one down" aspect, with less power. There are feminists who've written quite eloquently on the subject. I suggest you try to find some of them.

Rubyfruit Jungle, which I haven't read, happens to have been written by a lesbian, and a feminist. I can't believe it's porn rahter than erotica.

But liking erotic literature, visual art, song, theater is not about hating women. It is about sex. It could be about celebrating it, exorcising it, or coming to terms with it when it scares or offends you. But Pr0n is not simply about violence, unless you believe all sex to be violence against women.

I agree totally with celebrating, etc. But you're equating porn with erotica (in the hopes of elevating porn? I should hope not!). You make a grave error. AFAIC, there is no justification for porn. None. Erotica? Given the mutuality and respect, that's an entirely different matter.

Most men can't tell the difference because they don't get it about "respect" and mutuality. They like to think -- it's part of their mythology and the lies they tell themselves about women, actually -- that women ENJOY displaying themselves in those ways, enjoy being objectified and made into subhuman toys and playthings (and indeed, some women have been sufficiently damaged and/or brainwashed that they think they do, but unsurprisingly eventually have to turn to drugs and alcohol to dull the pain of that humiliation).

[Fovea]

71. While he is a male

Justice Potter Stewart says something both cogent and vexing when he says "I know it when I see it."

Vexing because it admits that a justice of the SCOTUS cannot define porn. This subjectivity is the root of this hydra.

Certainly, photos of lynching, child abuse, etc are not enjoyable to healthy individuals. But when compiling history, say of the lynchings in Omaha in 1919, that same photo might be very illuminating.


Also, I try not to be normative about human sexuality unless it is pathological. Sure, there is an awful lot of sick stuff out there. But that is because our society struggles to find a healthy way to express sexuality in a punitively normative church/media/state environment. Our cultural neurosis on sex allowed us to do essentially nothing for the initial half decade of the AIDs epidemic out of some misplaced shadenfreude regarding the sexual other. The tone and tenor of this discussion has shown that the ability to discuss sexuality without is being about the participant's aesthetics rather than discourse about a very complex subect in an objective way.

I am just saying a lot of people who are very worked up about porn/erotica (two spots on the continuum between undeniable depravity and petty flirtation) are just as worked up about almost any sexual expression. Here I refer to the 'all penetration is rape' rhetoric of folks who mimic Lysistrata, without the inflatable penii, or other visible signs of humor.

The first diagnostic sign of neurosis rather than rational concern is that when someone has to ignore a post that is not adopting this Dwarkinian view of sexual expression.


I don't waste time usually spreading my bona fides, but trust me, as a Wiccan priest of thirty plus years, who has done handfastings and pastoral counseling for couples of all stripes, I recognize that there is such a thing as abusive, pathological sex. But for every unambiguous example of unacceptable behavior there are several less egregious, harder to define as unambiguously unacceptable.

[femrap]

66. Most p0rn? And the rest?

Go sell your patriachial bullshit elsewhere. I am just waiting for the day when the p0rn is violent and degrading to males....Oh...that's right...that's the rest that is not protected by the Constitution.

I'm sure that Ben Franklin and Jefferson are so happy to know that their Constitution is used so to allow lap dances, strip clubs, and snuff films.

ignored.

[Fovea]

68. I find plenty of objectification

and sexual stereotyping in romance novels.

And your using Ben Franklin as a model of sexual moderation is breathtaking.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[smirkymonkey]

145. Honestly, a few years on this board and I have come to

pretty much hate men. I thought maybe I would find a few men who were decent human beings on a liberal website, but most of the men here are just as piggish and ignorant as the guys you find over at "those other websites."

I am sick of being dismissed and being told my pain and my struggle doesn't matter. I am sick of being told to suck it up because "that's the way it is". I am sick and tired of men making light of issues that are important to any woman who has some shred of self-respect left in this fucked up society.

And you know what - I suspect that there are a lot of women out there who secrectly or not-so-secretly feel the same way.

[NobleCynic]

10. Just a short question to get some persepective on your views

Do you consider shows like "Sex in the City" which promote/glorify the same kind of behavior in women a step forward towards equality, or a step backwards? I can see valid arguments both ways, I'm just wondering if the issue from your persepective is the assymmetry of the power between the genders or an innate wrongness in humor made at the expense of one's gender.

[nashville_brook]

13. i rec'd this thread b/c i totally agree with the poster -- on Sex and the City...

there's a book called Female Chauvenist Pigs that discusses the point you bring up.



imho, i think the Girls Gone Wild/Sex and the City phenoms aren't so much a step backwards as a detour into the weeds... self-imposed objectification is still objectification. it might seem like you decided where you wanted to go, but, you're still in the weeds.

i'm not going to wag a finger and say that consumerist sex is bad. gee, have at it. but raunch feminism is weak, lame feminism.

[The Doctor.]

16. Right, when men do it, it's disgusting chauvanism,

When women do it, it's a 'few bad apples'.

Gotcha!

PS: Girls Gone Wild is some pretty blatant objectification by guys making a shitload of cash. S&TC is about Girls often objectifying men.

[Morgana LaFey]

45. That's not what was said -- you excel at that, don't you?

Nowhere was the claim made that trivializes its occurrence, as you've claimed.


BTW, AFAIC -- and I am sure most feminists would agree -- objectification is wrong, objectionable and should be condemned no matter who's doing it.

THE DIFFERENCE is -- that is, what makes objectification of women worse -- is that women are an underclass to start with. Objectification helps keep that lesser status firmly in place. Objectification of men is wrong and, as I said, shouldn't happen, but it will never make them 2nd class citizens or unequal as a class.

[NobleCynic]

17. Interesting

I'll take a look into it.

As a side note, I'm not sure I'd put Girls Gone Wild in the same category as Sex and the City, at least in this context. The former seems to have more in common with standard porn, whereas the latter is a comedic take on the objectification of men by women.

[nashville_brook]

20. i'm 40, but have friends who are much younger

many younger women have (sadly) affected this chauvenistic pose as "empowerment."

i can embrace the idea of "re-claiming" sexuality. but, it's not a true re-claiming, b/c it's still objectification. a real victory would be re-claiming sexuality as "subjectivity." i'm not sure what that would look like -- i doubt it's something that could be mass marketed, so we may never see it.

[Orrex]

27. Clarification, please?

The former seems to have more in common with standard porn, whereas the latter is a comedic take on the objectification of men by women.

Girls Gone Wild and its slimy (and recently fined!) creator are undeniably wretched, but I wonder how one might, in the abstract, distinguish between two works that might each be considered pornographic. What makes one "a comedic take" and another "standard porn," for example?

[NobleCynic]

63. Eye of the beholder I suppose

Defining what exactly makes something comedy and something else just obscene is and always has been a point of debate. Is George Carlin a comedian or just a purveyor of profanity? Ugly question. It has been debated between performers and censors for as long as I can remember.

In this case, my take would be the difference is intent. Sex and the City can certainly be considered pornographic, and at regular intervals it is, but the intent of the creators is that it be comedic first and foremost. Priorities in which the creators want the show considered for demonstrate the difference between it and things like Girls Gone Wild.

(editted to add the following)

As to whether or not the show can be considered to have social value is a different question entirely. I'm not certain raunch feminism is a good thing, I'm not sure chauvinism is a good thing. Yet, I'm also hesitant to say either should be censored. Perhaps it is simply another one of those many things that should be used sparingly and in moderation.

[Orrex]

26. Levy was interviewed on Fresh Air a few weeks back

Here's the link. Quite a good episode IMO.

[nashville_brook]

34. loved her on Colbert -- will check this out! thanks!

[Morgana LaFey]

44. Thanks. I imagine that covers it.

I've never seen Sex and The City because I always just simply reject the premise. IF there are women out there as shallow and superficial as I imagined, from what I heard about the show, that the premise made them, I didn't want to know about it and certainly didn't want to support it.

Too, encouraging or portraying women to behave as badly as men isn't "equality" in my book, but it sure goes a long way in "justifying" men's bad behavior, doesn't it? "LOOK! Women do it too. Now we can't be held to a higher standard. In addition, now women are equal too. Wheee! We are OFF the fucking hook!"

Blech. Revolting.

[nashville_brook]

52. and, i hate to say it, but reckless sexuality can hurt women...

emotionally and physcially waaay more than men. these younger women i know are suffering from this -- emotionally, mostly.

i tried to watch SATC on DVD, but it really rubbed me the wrong way. it seemed kinda shallow and i couldn't relate to any of the characters... especially not as mythic feminine archetypes. there seemed to be a subtext that close friendships were enjoyed as part of the "single-girl-as-predator" spectrum. like they wouldn't have anything in common without their pursuit of men -- as if that's all women care about.

i prolly didn't give it enough of a chance. maybe... later in the season, they tackle poltical issues or the lives of women as *people*, but i didn't get that soon enough to hold my attention. :)

thanks for the thread. :hug:

[Morgana LaFey]

54. That's exactly it --

what I wrote about in a post in the new thread about "creaming one's jeans":

there seemed to be a subtext that close friendships were enjoyed as part of the "single-girl-as-predator" spectrum. like they wouldn't have anything in common without their pursuit of men -- as if that's all women care about.

Were there any WOMEN involved in writing this, because that's precisely the kind of "this is how I think about things or want as a man, so it must also be the way women think too" type of myopia that men are so guilty of pretty much across the board. You've described it very well.

It's the privilege (again) of being a member of the oppressor class, rather than the oppressed. In contrast, the oppressed always know more about the oppressor (individually and as a group or class) than they usually know about themselves. They have to, for survival purposes.

[nashville_brook]

55. oppressed-oppressor.... white girl here... i totally GET that!

that's all i really have to say about that. i understand being on both sides of the fence vis a vis race and gender.

one good thing that came out of SATC, tho, was the book, "He's Just Not That Into You." it was one of those mass market books that angered me every time i saw it. i had completely misunderstood the intent of the book. when i found myself having to leave the husband a friend gave me her tattered copy of it, and it really helped me deal with the "dumping."

the book was a collaborative effort with two of the show's consultants -- a woman, liz tuccillo, and a man, greg behrendt. in greg's introduction he talks about how the women on the show asked him for relationship advice ("there's this guy... and... he's not calling me... etc"). the premise of the book is simple: if he's not calling you, or treating you well, or ANY of the things that we women obsess over -- then, he's prolly just not that into you. quit wasting your time and move on. if he's into you he'll make time, learn a new language and move heaven and earth. that's what you deserve.

women don't say these things to other women. we enable each other's enabling. :)

i think your intuition about men being involved in the show is correct -- but i also think that women are confused about gender issues now more than ever. i've experienced some incredible sexism from women toward women. we are great self-oppressors.

[Morgana LaFey]

58. I saw an Oprah show where they were doing some relationship

kind of stuff and that book's title was invoked. The woman in question had been dumped by her husband (under strange circumstances -- he changed his identity and disappeared, or something similarly bizarre) and she was fantasizing that SOME day he'd be sorry, come back and apologize, and so forth and so on. Dr. Robin (last name?) said, no, he's just not that into you. He's a sociopath. He'll never come back. You have to get over him enough so that you don't fantasize like that.

All your points are very interesting. Thanks.

[raccoon]

151. Amen to that!

" but reckless sexuality can hurt women...
emotionally and physcially waaay more than men. these younger women i know are suffering from this -- emotionally, mostly. "

There are some differences between men and women that can NEVER be made equal.

[Fovea]

99. "IF there are women out there as shallow and superficial as I imagined,

from what I heard about the show, that the premise made them, I didn't want to know about it"

I recommend we all meditate on this statement, and what it really says about the author's attitudes about both women and men.

This is also an objectification of women. It starts in the Victorian era with woman as 'angel in the house.' How women are purer, nobler, better than bestial men. This attitude was not promulgated exlusively by men, btw.

That rationale was used to restrict women's lives due to what was undoubtely more than just a desire to protect the nobility of women by keeping them unworldly. The unquestionable superiority of women's morality is a way to salve the oppressed by saying that they are better than their oppressors.

So in following this illuminating quote above, I should just ignore the men out there who are shallow and bestial, because in my beautiful mind, all men are Albert Schweitzer or St. Francis of Assisi.

In reality, saints are rare, regardless of plumbing.

[seabeyond]

170. i am confused. why is there a naked female. why not a naked man.

male chauvenist pig would have the same picture.

[noamnety]

171. I think it's because in both cases

it's the women being objectified. When women are sexist, most often it seems they are sexist against women, using sexist slurs, calling other women out for not looking right, not dressing right, not behaving right.

[seabeyond]

172. i dont agree. another thing i dont agree with is the shying from whore and slut

i think part of the problem n both sides is a dishonesty. and looking at definition of slut and whore, .... they are just words. if we need to "soften" those words to not offend the female that is being a whore or slut, then... lol they have a problem with it and dont tell me it is a healthy choice. that alone says not. if a woman who choses that life can also equally embrace slut and whore without offense, she at least has a chance of having it in a somewhat healthy manner. for all of us to take those words and rule them not nice when it is the very words used and felt by the male using these women, to me, is dishonest. and i think dishonesty to self is the ultimate in unhealthy

i think that woman was used cause that is how we symbolize that world and the author is conditioned. unless i hear a more reasonable excuse. i am just not buying yours, lol.

[noamnety]

173. I agree that this is how we symbolize the world

I was saying that both men and women are conditioned to symbolize the world that way - women as sex class, and all.

Why do you think we are conditioned to see the world that way?

[The Doctor.]

12. How disgusting this is is only magnified by the fact that

Women don't ever behave similarly.

Why, I can't for the life of me imagine women ever getting together and bashing men or demeaning them in any way.

Sexism, like racism, only works one way after all.

I suppose my mentioning that makes me a man?

[Chulanowa]

14. At least, according to Danny DeVito...

Who as we all know, the men of the planet Earth elected as their representative during our secret underground meetings - after the gang rape, of course.

What, do you think we really play golf?

[noamnety]

18. I have a hard time watching letterman nowadays

I remember watching him when I was younger, and not being offended, and then I spent over a decade without a tv. I don't know if he changed or I just became aware of how women are depicted and how offensive it is, but the show as a whole does so much objectification of women that I can't watch him anymore, unless there's a particular guest I want to see.

(A little off topic, just saying.)

[Syrinx]

22. I watch David Letterman nearly every night he's on and I don't see how you could call him sexist

Is it the "grinder girl?" Or that he comments that some movie star is "easy on the eyes?"

This "objectification" thing, in general, may have some merit, but I honestly think that some people just can't be happy unless they are "offended" by something. I'm not offended when I hear some women (or gay men, for that matter) talking about how "hot" Brad Pitt or someone is. And I never desired criminal sanctions against HBO, or Time-Warner, over "Sex In The City." I only saw a few episodes of the show, but from what I saw the basic theme of the show seemed to be that a man was unworthy of love, affection and sex if he didn't have at least a 13-inch penis. Talk about objectification! Good thing for men, I guess, that elasticity isn't as easily, popularly quantified as length. :shrug:

David Letterman, from what I can tell, is a good guy. I don't know if he's a Democrat. He's probably an independent. I can't conceive that he's a Republican; he's just too decent for that. (Well, there are decent people that call themselves Republicans. But if they are still voting for today's Republicans, someone should probably intervene.)

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

[noamnety]

25. Not sure why you think sexism is related to his party identity

It's not. Haven't found a party yet that makes most men want to give up some of their male privilege, or even acknowlege that they have it.

I don't watch sex in the city, so I can't comment on that.

Yes, it's the grinder girl type crap, which seems to be completely acceptable to a lot of the same men who I suspect wouldn't watch a talk show - no matter the politics of the host - if a regular feature were instead a group of men parading around in tight speedos lined with fur trim posing like sex objects for the camera. I just have no interest in watching a show that promotes women as objects (i.e. existing for the sole purpose of being on display for the male gaze), and I don't respect Letterman because he's chosen to be part of that.

I don't understand your comment that some people "just can't be happy unless they are offended by something." I'm offended by sexism. Is that a bad thing?

[Syrinx]

80. of course you should be offended by sexism

I don't, however, see the David Letterman show as sexist. Heck, two of his executive producers are feminist women (each, apparently, with a sense of humor).

I doubt I would watch the hypothetical show you describe -- unless it was good, but I wouldn't mind if other people did. People like to watch pretty people. Men AND women. Pretty people are nice to look at. I wish I looked like a movie star and more people wanted to look at me.

I just don't think that David Letterman is the devil because he sometimes has the "Grinder Girl" (her name is Kiva Kahl) on his show, and doubt she does either. He's the most genuine host on television, and when he has political guests on, he's the toughest interviewer as well. On top of that, he gives a lot of money to very worthy charities. And you say he's sexist because he sometimes features a performance artist that happens to be a very sexy woman?

[omega minimo]

33. Picture Dave arriving on stage with the 2 floppy models fawning and falling all over him

Now picture a female talk show star arriving on stage with 2 males flopping and fawning and falling around in costumes with silly grins and weak knees.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Can't do it, can ya?


No. What the whole package of dress, behavior, comments (does Dave ever comment on male guests' "hygiene"?), skits, etc. is a way to keep males in the position of dominance. Topdog.

Why did they sexy up the costumes for the Hula Hoop woman in "Will It Float"? She started out looking like an athlete, not a Vegas showfgirl. The Grinder Girl looks comfortable, like she's having fun with her punk Betty Boop schtick-- the Hula Hoop woman has a stiff smile and scared deer-in-headlights look wearing some bullshit "look at me I'm sexy" costume she was forced into. Apparently her skill and talent --and former, less glamorized costumes-- aren't enough :eyes:



"This "objectification" thing, in general, may have some merit, but I honestly think that some people just can't be happy unless they are "offended" by something."

This sort of comment is why I asked the Forum if we need a separate Research Thread for people who are interested to educate themselves, to quit having to say the same things over and over and continuously deal with the same sort of incomprehension.


* "This "objectification" thing, in general, may have some merit...."

Okay, no points off for calling it "this objectification thing" esp. if some interest is expressed in "may have some merit" and leads to LEARNING, LISTENING rather than merely DISMISSING the "objectification thing."

Rather than opine or argue about it, we need a Research thread or Forum to point folks toward research and documentation, information on the "objectification thing." It exists. Thank you for asking.

* "....but I honestly think that some people just can't be happy unless they are "offended" by something."

Unfortunately the dismissive incomprehension and INSULT of the end of the sentence pretty much cancels out the previous potential.

We've heard this "some people just can't be happy unless they are "offended" by something" before on DU-- and sorry, it doesn't smack of "honesty." Know why?

Because it's a meme, it's repeated by many here, it's used as an insult, a taunt and "shut-up-now-you're-just-looking-for-something-to-complain-about," another way of telling feminist women "you just need to get ____." And it sounds like something a "men's rights" Right Wing misogynist would say.

It might sound "honest" if it wasn't so common-- and so commonly used as a way to try to shut women up.

Which goes back to the OP's question: Why don't more women and men on DU challenge the obvious sexism and misogyny here?

[Syrinx]

81. Sure, I can picture a stud-bunny show

Yes, David Letterman does indeed comment on his male guests' hygiene. Quite frequently. It's shtick.

If you have evidence that the Hula Hoop woman was "forced" into her costume, I suggest you contact the NYPD or the FBI.

It may surprise you to learn that I consider myself a feminist. I believe wholeheartedly in equal rights for every human being, and that absolutely includes women. But I just as strenuously reject the condescending, radicalized, joyless, soul-destroying, pessimistic and misanthropic brand of feminism peddled by the likes of Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon. And proudly and happily so.

[omega minimo]

86. So seeing it in Black And White, Either/Or allows you to evade the actual issues.

[Syrinx]

108. I'm not evading issues. Maybe you are inventing issues.

I'm for equal rights for women, but I'm against irrational temper tantrums based on phantom fears and some self-imposed victim status. To claim that "Late Night With David Letterman" is a bastion of institutional sexism is bizarre, bordering on the insane. Almost everyone on this message board wants equal rights for everyone. I've seen more hatred for men in this single thread than I've seen against women in every single thread I've read in 4+ years combined. But, hey, it's a supposedly free country, so if that's how you want to use your time, fighting imaginary enemies, in imaginary battles, for imaginary goals, that's your right. Good luck.

[Madspirit]

153. I LOATHE Letterman

I'm a Buffy fan and one of the actresses from the show, Eliza Dushku, was on Letterman. He spent the ENTIRE time looking straight down her blouse. He's old enough to be her grandfather. We haven't watched him since. It made me sick to my stomach. Fucking old lecherous slob.
Lee

[Morgana LaFey]

46. You're entirely correct

His show is pretty disgusting. I frankly turn him on AFTER Colbert and on the way to Craig Ferguson whose zany humor appeals to me. If I'm able to stay up for his monologue, I at least go to bed smiling. (That's not to say he's not sexist too, btw, just funny.)

[Madspirit]

141. I can't stand Letterman

One of my favorite Buffy people, Eliza Dushku was on Letterman. He spent the entire interview looking straight down her blouse. He is old enough to be her grandfather. Blech. How men think it's cool to fuck people they are old enough to have diapered, I will NEVER get. When a woman acts that way, they make made-for-tv movies and it's in the news for forever, it's such an exception. For men, marrying, fucking, whatever, people they could have diapered, just seems the norm. I HATE Letterman for his lechery.
Lee

[TheMadMonk]

19. And women dont do this right back at men?

Perhaps not to the same extent that men do, but they do it all the same. How many women here can honestly say they have never in their lives have they said: "That Leonardo/Sean Connery/Roger Moore/... makes me cream my jeans."?

As far as objectification goes: Men objectify the image directly before them, whereas women objectify what that image represents, (success and security) Actually men do too, (health, broodworthiness) but the timescale is far shorter since they can achieve success (in the breeding game) by taking the shotgun approach and scattering small 'deposits' far any wide, whilst women are limited by their nature to a small handful of longterm investments that require an enormous amount of nurturing to mature.


Women and men also denigrate others of the same sex and here women are the worst offenders. Men on the outs tend to be on the outs across the board, whilst women will switch allegiances at the drop of a hat depending on who is present (and perhaps more importantly who is not).


The problem lies not in the objectification/denigration of people, but in that men cam out on top through sheer brute strength since that was the only criterion that mattered in the survival game for most of human history.

I've said on many occasions that the true wonder in the cause of gender equality lies in the incredible speed (virtually in lock step with the journey from horse and cart to rockets to the moon) with which it has advanced. Men have called the shots for millenia. Barely 100 years (four generations) ago, men (with admittedly great reluctance) accepted that women had minds. Three generations ago, they achieved a degree of social independence. Two, they became legally separate entities to their male protectors/owners. And one, the distinction between men and women in the workforce was erased, giving women equal wages and equal access to super/pension funds. (The remaining disparity, in average wages, is mostly down to more women working part time than men, and a handful of poorly paid 'traditionally female' jobs.)

Today, we seriously debate the possibility of a woman rising to the highest offices possible. and indeed in many nations including some that are still incredibly misogynistic that goal has already been achieved.

Like it or lump it, in general those who call the shots are those who have been there the longest and have the most old fashioned ideas. And these are the men who have a vested interest in holding women back. However, they are a (literally) dying breed. They are fighting a desperate, futile rearguard action to hold onto the (relatively) little which remains to them.

You've won the ruddy war ladies, so stop your bloody whining about how bad you still have it and just get on with mopping up the last pockets of resistance. O.K.?

[bettyellen]

23. your kidding about the wage part? or just making shit up because.......

women do not have an even playing feild at the office yet. not even close. you've been misinformed.

[TheMadMonk]

37. Legal equality. Same job = same pay. (At least here in Aust.)

Contrast that to the situation here in the seventies and earlier when a womans wage was legally set at half that of a man's, and she was prevented from having a superannuation/retirement fund at all.

[Morgana LaFey]

47. Australia is NOT the U.S.

There was a thread within the last several days to the effect that women's wages had climed ALL THE WAY TO 75% OF MEN's in the 1990s, but were now slipping back again. I don't have the link, but may try to search for it.

And you are entirely wrong that there are any extenuating circumstances that account for the disparity, like women working parttime.

[NobleCynic]

65. You are incorrect about wage equality in Australia as well actually

You can check the statistics yourself:

http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gendergap/australia.pdf

There is some interesting material hidden away in there however. Women in australia outnumber men in profession and technical positions, and outnumber them in post graduate degrees it seems, but make comparatively less money nonetheless when considering comparative positions.

(Editted to add)

Being hesitant to take verbal abuse from zealous feminists is no excuse to be ignorant that the current state of reality is one of inequality. If you accept that, or least demonstrate some knowledge or awareness of the fact, you might have a little more leeway in defending yourself. As is, your standing is a little thin.

[bettyellen]

101. the law is not the reality, in australia or here. so you are wrong and insulting to

somehow hint that we should be happy we can have or own retirement accounts and fairer (not fair and you fucking know it if you know anything) pay.
you're really quite whiney for someone who never had to worry about having equal rights. why are you so fucking resentful when woman want equality?
why don't you wake the fuck up and see what is actually going on before telling us we shld be satisfied with the status quo.

[TheMadMonk]

109. The law is a bloody good start though.

Want to rely on evolving custom/tradition alone to make things better? Then lose your shoes, put your feet in the air and then hie thee back to the kitchen and wait another millennium or two. (Don't want to be insulted like that, then do me the same favour and keep a civil tongue in your head.)

Not once did I say that women had full equality. I said that the rate at which western society is moving towards full and true equality is phenomenal. I said that you have won the war in the sense that you have broken the back of entrenched misogyny. All you have to do to finish the job is not give up the ground you have won and wait for the old guard to die.

I resent nothing. I want you to have full equality. I'm just realistic enough to recognise that you won't wake up in the morning and find it accomplished. And demands for instant "compliance" on our (male) part will hinder more than help you in finishing the job. You are not going to get the irredeemable few remaining to change short of their becoming worm food and calling the rest of us arseholes in the meantime is just going to get our backs up.

Finally I DID NOT suggest that you content yourself with what you have won. In fact my very last words were that you should mop up those last few arseholes standing in your way.

[bettyellen]

113. so you want women equal, but believe theoretical equality should be enough

(that is what you've argued that the law is equal pay) and resent the request that men actually enforce equal treatment now. We should wait for men to die, instead of setting them straight? What a poor example that makes for the kids, keeping silence in the face of wrongdoing. Why should we keep silent? Because men find it unattractive behaviour? Actually lots of truly decent men prefer women who stand up for themselves, not concerned here about turning people on or off, but keeping hearing from men we shuld curb our tounges, funny that.
And we should be concerned about men "getting their backs up" because they really resent women being demanding. You say we shld mop people up, by waiting for them to become worm food? Not sure what your approach would be, perhaps holding your breath?
You can suggest I hie something somewhere and I can suggest you get your facts straight and stop confusing theoretical equal pay and theoretical equal rights with real life, because your argument was based on a totally false premise. And no, it's not time to rest on your laurels until you have actually won the prize, which is equal rights. I'm sure you have a clue how patronizing your suggestion is, it would seem you don't.

[TheMadMonk]

125. No I believe it is a staging point in the journey towards equality.

I don't resent you demanding observance of the law. What I resent is you demanding that I do something which is beyond my doing. I am not a legislator, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not an bloody employer. Furthermore, if I were an employer, I would pay my employees solely according to their ability and what they contribute to the business.

Besides all that, the point I was originally making, was intended only to illustrate that matters have improved not that they are ideal. That with each generation, fresh gender inequality issues are addressed, sometimes imperfectly, but addressed nonetheless. I accept and say that there is still work to be done, and still I get attacked.


Damned straight that I respect/prefer women who stand up for themselves. But that's stand up, not lash out indiscriminately because a non-representative sample do you wrong.

Men get their backs up, because some of you blame all men for the the wrongs of a few.

Some idiots will not change. The only rational thing to do is wait for them to become worm food. Attacking them head on might modify their behaviour, but it will almost certainly be for the worse.

I'm not confusing anything. You demand that the real world instantly conform to what you believe it should be. I say it is getting there, and doing so at an amazing speed. You say that is not enough. Someone here is living in a fantasy world. I don't think it's me.

[bettyellen]

129. some idiots will not change largely because other men let them think it's okay

(and we're including you in that group) there is world of options aside from waiting for bigots to "become worm food", which means to me, saying and doing nothing, ever. So yeah, waiting for them to die, is easy for you to say. but we wouldn't have the vote or jobs or many other rights without fighting for the, so I think your theory is worthless.....
Perhaps you'd have less patience if this patriarchal bullshit had any negative impact on your life, but to suggest we grin and bear (for the bigots lifetime, no less) it is just patently unfair. I;d be ashamed of myself honestly, to keep my mouth shut when men treat me or anyone else as a second class citizen, but I'm like that with racists as well. Do you suggest we keep closed mouthed and wait for the racists to die also? Why men like you aren't embarrassed to look the other way is beyond me. In my experience the great majority of men will only stick their necks out for their moms, sisters and whatever woman they are currently trying to impress. Men I know and love freely admit they have two sets of rules when it comes to women. And you know what, around me they don't because they know better.
It's an appalling double standard that I'm sure your familiar with, but I don;t let it be played on my watch.
So exactly why is it sooo much trouble to open your mouth and say something is offensive or degrading? Why are some men so desperate to be one of the boys that they have to sell out 1/2 of the human race? The excuse that somewhere somehow that would make one of us shrill feminist bitches a little tooo happy is a total cop out, yet it is the response the more Neanderthal men who come to these forums specifically to slap down feminist with always give. I'd be a stand up guy except bitches like you make me not want to! LOL. Ya think guys have shrill feminists on their mind that often when they are out with the boys? It cracks me up, but you have to agree it's all over this thread, all over this forum even though it's not believable for a a moment. They all like to take the easy less confrontational way out, which would be fne if you'd just admit it.
Blaming women or saying it is not worthwhile doesn't cut it at all. You yourself can be ineffectual because it's your choice, but own up to it. My choice is to inspire others by not accepting this BS where I find it, my choice is educating and helping people be stand up human beings who treat others with and so themselves deserve respect. So, I know you are wrong, because I've seen people's behavior change for the better. If you ignore them, people won't learn or improve, so yours is a stagnant, sadly self fulfilling prophesy. I'll take my way any day of the week.

[noamnety]

117. There are a lot of problems with this post.

Want to rely on evolving custom/tradition alone to make things better? Then lose your shoes, put your feet in the air and then hie thee back to the kitchen and wait another millennium or two.

First off, if you are in the women's rights area, it's NEVER a good idea to suggest that women "put their feet in the air." WTF. Is that supposed to be your shining example of respecting women? If you are having a disagreement with a woman, don't resort to any form of "you need to get laid." That sentence is an example of you resorting to male supremacy to try to "win" your argument. It's not an example of "those few arseholes" resorting to male supremacy, it's an example of YOU resorting to it, trying to put women in their place.

Out of curiousity, has anyone in an online argument with you ever resorted to telling you to shut up and put your feet in the air?

I said that the rate at which western society is moving towards full and true equality is phenomenal. All you have to do to finish the job is not give up the ground you have won and wait for the old guard to die.

The idea that we should just stop fighting, and men will just hand over their privilege in a few generations is laughable on many levels. This presumes that we can afford to wait a few generations, or even one generation. There are women dying today because of abuse, there are women around the world today being sold as sex slaves, there are women today being raped, being forced to carry the children resulting from those rapes, etc. The progress "in western society" is not phenomenal, unless you are talking about hypothetical laws, not real lives.

Also, if you were female, maybe you would understand the problem with waiting for "the old guard" to die off. Here's a newsflash for you. The young guard is the same as the old guard.

I don't know why you are focusing on "western society." "Western" men seem to have a habit of consuming porn that is created by nonwestern women and they have a habit of supporting prostitution around the world, even as they know those prostitutes are sold into the sex trade. Why are we talking here as though women's rights means western women's rights?

I resent nothing. I want you to have full equality. I'm just realistic enough to recognise that you won't wake up in the morning and find it accomplished. And demands for instant "compliance" on our (male) part will hinder more than help you in finishing the job. You are not going to get the irredeemable few remaining to change short of their becoming worm food and calling the rest of us arseholes in the meantime is just going to get our backs up.

"the irredeemable few?" Are you under the impression that male supremacy is the domain of a "few bad apples"? Did you read the OP with the movie scene described? Did it strike you as abnormal in some way for our society? Have you read statistics on wages, health care, rapes, sexual assault, that 30 percent of women in the military are victims of rape attempts by our own soldiers? Any woman will tell you that this is not a few bad apples, this is the norm.

Finally I DID NOT suggest that you content yourself with what you have won. In fact my very last words were that you should mop up those last few arseholes standing in your way.

"YOU" should mop of those last few arseholes? And by "mop up" you mean what exactly ... "keep a civil tongue in our head" while we "put our feet in the air"?

Why did you use the pronoun "You" instead of "We"? Why isn't this equally YOUR job to fight discrimination in all its forms?

[TheMadMonk]

126. I say the law is illustrative of improvement.

You tell me that it is not enough. You're almost certainly right. My crudeness was an attempt to get the point across that without those inadequate laws, that if womens issues had been addressed through custom/tradition alone, you would be far closer to "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen" than to the position you occupy today.

Certain individuals here have put words in my mouth, misrepresented what I wrote and assaulted me with profanity. Don't get holier than thou when I toss something offensive back into the mix.

That was not about you (or anyone) needing to get laid. I was just pointing out that you would be, whether you liked it or not, without the laws deemed inadequate by some here. The problem is not that those laws are inadequate it is that they run contrary to custom/tradition. Perhaps the wonder is that the laws are as effective as they are. I agree with you that the customs being fought are wrongheaded at the very least, and downright evil in places, but they are traditions nonetheless. And the changing of traditional behaviour is always an uphill battle.


I didn't say stop fighting. Just stop insisting upon instant perfection, and them blaming all men when you don't get it.

Lets get one thing straight here. All of my arguments pertain to the situation of women in western societies. The complaints here in this discussion have been about excessively ribald commentary and retardation of the progress of women's rights. The addressing of horrors elsewhere in the world in a whole different matter to what we have been discussing to date and you bloody well know it.

We are talking of western womens rights, because that is the context of the original post. IF the context had been the lot of women worldwide, 90 plus percent of what has been said here on either side would never have been brought up at all. They would have amounted to irrelevant minutae.

If you want to discuss FGM, honour killings, sexual slavery, dowry killings (or whatever they're called), female infanticide and the rest, then I will bring out the pickhandle and lay into the men responsible right alongside you.

For you to even hint that I am support that sort of shit is first disingenuous, because those matters have not been under discussion here. Secondly, it is far more offensive than ANYTHING I have ever seen written by any man about women on any discussion board I have ever visited. If you were to do that to my face I would deck you on the spot.


Actually what I see in the behaviour described in the OP is akin to the death throes of male supremacy. A last hysterical hurrah if you will. Those who practice it are sad gits, becoming less and less relevant to modern society. Unless he's in a position to do actual harm, he's not worth the effort of hawking up a gobbet of spittle.

And that is what I've been saying all along. save you efforts for dealing as best you can with the increasingly few who can cause real hurt. They are the ones you need to mop up.


As for keeping a civil tongue. I'm finding it damned hard to do that when you throw that sort of deliberate misrepresentation in my face. As I suspect you well know, I was referring solely to the profanity the previous poster directed my way.

As for the YOU. Finally a valid point. Battling discrimination is something for ALL of us to do. But I'm not hearing many "We"s from the other side of the fence. It's all "men must" and collective responsibility.

[noamnety]

127. Go on, keep digging

Problem #1: You don't recognize the sexism that still exists in this culture, which does real damage to real women. "You've won the ruddy war ladies, so stop your bloody whining about how bad you still have it." (Again with the use of "you"; again I say you obviously see fighting discrimination as not-your-job, not-your-war.) 1 in 3 American women are the victims of sexual assault during their lifetimes. http://www.gmu.edu/facstaff/sexual/brochures/WorldStats2005.pdf Absorb that statistic, along with with the economic and health care statistics, and ask yourself how that constitutes "winning the war."

Problem #2: You don't recognize the prevalence of that sexism; you seem to think it's "a few bad apples" rather than an entire culture of rape and discrimination. http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0286.htm

Problem #3: You don't recognize the connections between treating women in this culture as second class citizens, and how that culture is exported to nonwestern societies. (In the form of media, in the form of environmental damage which disproportionately affects women, in the form of the economic policies that help force other women into sexual slavery, in the form of exporting violence against women as a byproduct of warfare. Teach American men to dehumanize/objectify women, teach them to dehumanize women as a form of male bonding, teach them to connect sex with violence, then ship them to military bases in 130 different countries.) Instead you give us your racist colonialized view of how those other cultures degrade and abuse women - and I say racist and colonialized because you conveniently whitewash your examples of violence against women, picking and choosing the forms of violence you list in an attempt to distance what white American males do to women in our country from the violence that occurs against foreign women in other countries - listing, for example, FGM as a major crime against women worldwide, but not plain old sexual assault - although FGM has affected an estimated 100-140 million women worldwide to date, and roughly a billion women have been the victims of sexual assault or rape.

Problem #4: You seem to think the best way to combat sex discrimination and violence against women is not to look at the root causes and address them forcefully, but rather to sit back and do nothing, and wait for everyone that doesn't respect women as humans to die.

Problem #5: Coming into the women's rights area, as a man, and playing the victim. Despite an OP that specifically asks Is there some reason more women don't challenge the rather rampant sexism here? you're claiming It's all "men must". Chew on this. You're in an area where a large percentage of us are rape and sexual assault victims, a large percentage of us are dealing with PTSD as a result of that, and you want to shift the discussion to how horribly you're being abused by being asked in an online forum (that you could log off of at any moment with no repurcussions at all) to take 5 seconds occasionally to speak up when somebody is objectifying women or making jokes about rape? Buy a clue, dude. You are not the victim. You do not need our sympathy just because you opted to take part in a discussion on women's rights and people didn't pat you on the back for not speaking up here.

Problem #6: You're in the women's rights area, telling a woman that if she said something to your face you didn't like, you would hit her.

[Morgana LaFey]

120. demands for instant compliance

demands for instant "compliance" on our (male) part will hinder more than help you in finishing the job. You are not going to get the irredeemable few remaining to change

Yeah, like asking nicely has worked so well these past 3 or 4 millennia.

Get real. The Civil Rights Movement with its Civil Disobedience happened precisely because blacks finally realized that asking nicely hadn't helped one iota in the past.

and calling the rest of us arseholes in the meantime is just going to get our backs up.

I don't care what men I offend. As I posted elsewhere in the thread, those men who truly are pro-women, who truly are feminists (or nearly) aren't going to be offended in the least: they KNOW where they stand. They would jump right in and challenge you and the others in pretty much the same terms we women have been doing.

[smirkymonkey]

146. You know what I am really sick of? Men who invade the women's

rights forum just to bitch about how "women do it too" and "all women just WANT to be victims" and the rest of their bullshit. Like we give a shit about the sexist claptrap they try to pawn off as "reason".

[undercutter2006]

163. and if there is a post about how women discriminate against men in certain circumstances

wouldn't it be appropriate for feminists on DU to join in and bitch about it? they do it all the time. and it's ok, as long as the persons actually try to argue in good faith, which sadly is frequently lacking from both sides. but to make a post on a extremely popular forum of discussion and then not to expect to engage with people who honestly want to challenge your worldview seems kind of silly. and if you don't give a shit about what other people think, why do you expect anybody to give a shit about you, honestly?

[Quantess]

167. What the fuck are you doing here on a "Women's Rights Forum"?

I am interested in hearing about your problem. Tell me all about it. I'm actually a very nice, non-judgmental person when you get to know me. :)

[NobleCynic]

24. Bettyellen is right about the wages still being unequal

But you are essentially correct in that the movement is towards equality at a historically unprecedented rate.

And that objectification does go both ways

[twenty4blackbirds]

36. Good question.

Hiya. I thought you may want an answer to your question. So I have posted it on it's own. You can see my answer there.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=229x5410
cheers,

[TheMadMonk]

110. Tucks in bib and fronts up to a corby pie.

I made a bad choice of phrases. I guess I was just looking for the most shocking phrase I'd heard a woman/girl utter in that context. And strangely enough I don't recall ever hearing it from a bloke.

Sorry.

[knitter4democracy]

38. "Cream my jeans"?

:wtf:

Um, women don't say that one. I have never heard it (and I lived in a women's dorm most of college). That's a male statement. I'm just sayin' . . .

It's funny. Most women I know who will admit they think some guy is hot or that some actor is really cute rarely go so far as to admit it's sexual. They stop at "cute" or "sparkly eyes" or whatever code they're using. Guys I know tend to be far more sexual in their comments, i.e., "I'd do her," "Nice piece of ass," or some other varient of "I'd do her." Maybe that's why the objectification hits us a bit harder. Ours has plausible deniability.

[Fovea]

100. I have never heard my S.O. say 'cream my jeans'

She prefers 'happy in pants.'
And I hear her say it about both Vin Diesel, and Gweneth Paltrow(sp?) (and many others).
Why is that disgusting?

Does that somehow make her some sort of inferior woman?
I don't think so. And she has been raped.
I would not dream of criticizing her attitudes
about sex, even if I did somehow find them problematic, considering what she has accomplished to get back to a healthy, functional sexual identity.

[knitter4democracy]

111. That's why I said "most."

Did I say in any way that a woman who chooses to express herself in any way she chooses is somehow inferior? I simply said that I had never heard that exact phrase and that it was physical enough in its meaning that most (not all) women I know would not use it. I would never censor anyone unless I were teaching high school again and had to for my job.

My SIL was raped, and it is going to be a long time for her to get to a healthy, functional sexual identity. Please give your S.O. my respect and hugs for fighting that battle and winning. I worry for my SIL. She still refuses to talk about it, refuses to press charges, and refuses to even go back to the city it happened in. She was drugged, kidnapped, and raped (while still a virgin--evangelical Christian and has chosen to wait for marriage) by a friend of a friend. I wish she would express herself and try to deal with what happened to her instead of bottling it all up inside of her.

[necklace]

142. No, the war isn't won, but the American culture has misogyny and misanthropy woven in its fabric.

For a country that touts itself as being the forerunner for women's liberation, we Americans seem to be a long way off.

I agree with you; for every woman that feels objectified - and it is a regular occurrence - every man is judged on their status and providability - if this is a word - within this society. Whatever happened to judging someone on their character, regardless of race, creed, gender, etc.????

[omega minimo]

21. Yeah, it's a distraction from the fact De Vito looks like a fire hydrant mated with a toad

"That makes us "things" whose primary purpose is to serve as a way for men to get closer to one another, having something to share (their hatred -- or at least disrespect -- of women)."

Maybe if the fireplug toad sexually harrasses women with his buddy the foppish dandy, people won't make fun of such "tough guys"!


Make fun of the :wow: between their :bounce: :bounce:


"I see this "male bonding" and plenty of other sexism here at DU too, of course, as I know all of you do. Is there some reason more women don't challenge the rather rampant sexism here?"

"Why don't the "non-offending" men step up to the plate? They don't, and won't. SILENCE CONDONES. They still benefit from sexism they refuse to challenge. Hah! Who says they even notice the sexism, or object to it?"

Some of them do. Some of them leave. Some topics are lost causes and/or incredibly challenging to keep from being hijacked. There is a lot of that deafening silence. Women have to fight the same battles over and over again or give up or go away. Challenging the status quo might scare away.. oh, I dunno........

Some topics degenerate predictably. Maybe better avoided. Yet the issue isn't what topics are discussed but whether women's POV will be treated with respect ("DU Rules based on respect") or baited, badgered, bullied....




Thanks for the disclaimer:

"Oh -- one request. As the male naysayers who simply can't leave this forum alone come in, please just totally, TOTALLY ignore them. It'll drive them so crazy they'll have to leave the forum out of frustration! IOW: don't feed the trolls. Not even one tiny crumb. PLEASE."

:eyes:

"I'll ask the question of how that's different from a right-wing radio host asking why we don't see "all those supposedly good Muslims stepping up to the plate"? Group guilt went out a long time ago."

"Most Porn is covered by a constitutional right. It is called the first amendment. What part of it should be abrogated for the sensibilities of some women or men?......But Pr0n is not simply about violence, unless you believe all sex to be violence against women."

"Right, when men do it, it's disgusting chauvanism, When women do it, it's a 'few bad apples'. Gotcha!...

"How disgusting this is is only magnified by the fact that Women don't ever behave similarly. Why, I can't for the life of me imagine women ever getting together and bashing men or demeaning them in any way. Sexism, like racism, only works one way after all. I suppose my mentioning that makes me a man?"

"At least, according to Danny DeVito...who as we all know, the men of the planet Earth elected as their representative during our secret underground meetings - after the gang rape, of course. What, do you think we really play golf?"

"And women dont do this right back at men? Perhaps not to the same extent that men do, but they do it all the same.... Women and men also denigrate others of the same sex and here women are the worst offenders. Men on the outs tend to be on the outs across the board, whilst women will switch allegiances at the drop of a hat depending on who is present (and perhaps more importantly who is not).

"You've won the ruddy war ladies, so stop your bloody whining about how bad you still have it and just get on with mopping up the last pockets of resistance. O.K.?"

[Triana]

28. K & R and...

...ignoring them is absolutely the best "medicine". They have to have the limelight. It feeds their need for superiority and to be the center of attention. DON'T feed IT. And, if you see ME doing it - PM me! I'll stop, as I may not have realized IT was a troll.

[Morgana LaFey]

48. And I didn't even follow my own advice

Shame on me, big time. I'm NOT proud.

[the other one]

29. Whereas women never objectify men

The deafening silence from all those who loudly convicted the Duke Lacrosse players as they now fight to restore the loss and mend the pain which they felt at the very public humiliation they endured. Where are the justified attacks against that women who set back race and gender relations by her selfish behavior?

[the other one]

30. Whereas women never objectify men

The deafening silence from all those who loudly convicted the Duke Lacrosse players as they now fight to restore the loss and mend the pain which they felt at the very public humiliation they endured. Where are the justified attacks against that women who set back race and gender relations by her selfish behavior?

This thread deserves to be hijacked.

[omega minimo]

31. "This thread deserves to be hijacked." Bully behavior proves the OP's point:

"I see this "male bonding" and plenty of other sexism here at DU too, of course, as I know all of you do. Is there some reason more women don't challenge the rather rampant sexism here?"


And proves mine:

"Some topics degenerate predictably. Maybe better avoided. Yet the issue isn't what topics are discussed but whether women's POV will be treated with respect ("DU Rules based on respect") or baited, badgered, bullied.... "


:evilfrown: :thumbsdown:

Your noxious sense of entitlement and dominance is EXACTLY what the OP was bringing up.

[nashville_brook]

35. wondering... do (we) women, look the other way because we're afraid...

i know i pass up opportunities to point out this stuff because i know other women get it AND i'm afraid of sounding "nanny-ish." like, there's always been an unspoken rule that we can talk about the sexism amongst ourselves, but in mixed company it's seen as ill-tempered.

the recent thread of family size really brought out the sexist side of DU -- focusing on the woman being "irresponsible" as if the father had no say in the matter. also forgetting that actually having children is the other side of reproductive freedom.

hmmm... these issues are interesting to me because they are unexamined. i don't pretend that i have the answers... but i do think that gender issues expose our underbelly.

[omega minimo]

57. well after long enough ya get tired of......

:banghead:

For many women who otherwise would speak up, the best options have been leave DU or avoid certain thread topics. There are some successes and rewarding exchanges with men who may have started out on the "other side" and some cool men who back us up. Yet there are the "handful" the OP mentioned and the same vicious circles that are predictably pointless and antagonistic, so........................ is there ever any real progress? And it's impossible to tell the ignorant from the plain assholes from the trolls.

Thing that's sad is that certain behaviors and attitudes are so ingrained and cliched (and the times are so violent, macho, aggressive) that it's considered "normal." Men trashing women because they're women is not recognized as bigotry or rape as a hate crime-- women asking for basic respect are attacked and antagonized.

The sad part is that to connect the dots and move on as a people, we have to recognize, as you say, "gender issues expose our underbelly."

How can we do that when we're going in vicious circles?

[femrap]

73. I just knew that * posted here!

I knew it! Hey...how's that war going? Hey, everyone it's *!!!

And he wants to give those Duke Lacrosse players a purple medal for the charges they face for kidnapping.

And he even has the bald eagle as his avatar....I knew it! I knew it! I knew it!

How are the twins? I know you said at the end of the Debates w/ Kerry that you liked to keep them on a very tight leash! Do they ever get mad at you and woof at you on occasion?

Hey.....Everyone....it's * with his eagle and small mind!

[ElboRuum]

32. Are you asking people to apologize for their Y chromosome? n/t

[undergroundpanther]

40. No.

Just asking the men to stop with the privileged mentality and to stop dehumanizing women. You think you are capable of being sensitized, or do you see compassion twords women, being sensitive to their issues and even not going along with sexist male banter because it';s well sick, as a threat to your"manly ego"?Your precious widdle Y? Men need to stop being so sexist.
And I know there's always one guy or more who say I am not sexist, Well what are you doing to stop sexism besides saying I'm not a sexist when women express disgust over sexist men? I think until non sexist men walk their talk and get on the case of the guys who ARE sexist , these non-sexists ain't nothing but a bystander.Bystanders are sometimes less guilty than the sexist ass-hats , but bystanders are guilty of sexism in a different way,a coward's way by not challenging it, and calling it wrong..

[Morgana LaFey]

50. Yes. SILENCE CONDONES, dammit.

They need to step up and be counted as pro-women (based on their BEHAVIOR here at DU) OR be counted among the sexist pigs that tend to overrun this place. Period.

[undergroundpanther]

60. I agreed with you

I just worded it different..I agree with you ,
If you are male and you are not sexist and fail to condemn sexist males you see everywhere you go including DU, you are guilty ,a coward and a bystander.

[ElboRuum]

89. Let's make this clear.

You just said: "you're either with us or against us."

Now who else has said words to this effect? And what do we think of him? Are you saying I should feel any more moved by your words than his?

Maybe you'd have more men willing to stand up on your side if you'd all just knock it off with the misandrist rants and broadstroking. No man I know is particularly willing to come up to the moral side of someone that just got done insulting him two minutes prior.

[lukasahero]

90. "if you'd all just knock it off"

"if you'd all just knock it off"

"No man I know is particularly willing to come up to the moral side of someone that just got done insulting him two minutes prior."

Wise words. Perhaps you'd do well to take your own advice.

[ElboRuum]

92. Sure...

And I see you got the subtle point I was trying to make to the poster. Doesn't feel good to be painted with the broadest of brushes, does it?

[lukasahero]

93. Didn't really bother me, no, because I am not guilty

of that which you are accusing. Think on that for a bit.

[ElboRuum]

94. Ugh... whatever...

Well, if it wasn't clear that I wasn't addressing you from this:

"And I see you got the subtle point I was trying to make to the poster."

...then I don't know what to tell you.

If it isn't clear from this that I was referring to this as a common human experience that I'm certain most if not all of us have been unfortunate enough to experience once or twice:

"Doesn't feel good to be painted with the broadest of brushes, does it?"

...then I really don't know what to tell you.

There, I 'thinked' on it. Shall we make more hay out of this?

[smirkymonkey]

147. Christ! The problem with men is that "Its Alllllllllllllll about them"!

They can't look at the issue of sexism without making it about themselves. This is the kind of crap that disgusts me.

Why can I - as a white, blond, fairly priviliged person - see and understand and empathize when I hear blacks, jews and other minorities complain about racism without TAKING IT PERSONALLY.

It seems to me that the reason so many men take complaints of sexism personally is because, personally they ARE sexist and therefore when women call men on their bullshit it hits a nerve.

[Morgana LaFey]

49. Only if

you think it gives you some special rights over those who don't have it.

[ElboRuum]

91. Even if I did feel that it does give me some special right...

...you'd not get an apology from me.

Your post is a typical misandrist rant, loaded with generalization and broadstroke stereotypes I've heard all my life in similar rants, and is just as sexist as the behaviors you describe. As such I give it the credence and take it as seriously as I think its due; that is to say, not much.

Like I said to the other poster above, maybe more men would be inclined to stand up against the sexists in our midst if they weren't the proxy objects of your scorn. I don't feel particularly inclined to come to the moral aid of people who just insulted me by lumping me in with the people exhibiting the behavior they detest.

[bettyellen]

102. maybe it's not misandry, but not liking YOU, and YOUR BEHAVIOR....

seems pretty obvious since you admit you'd claim special privileges- knowing it was wrong- just to be a little bitch to someone who rubbed you the wrong way.... all the while knowing your behavior pretty much proves their point. and you think this is not detestable?
you ought to be embarrassed.

[undergroundpanther]

39. I wish

for 6 months every man had to be a woman.
Let the boob fetishist feel the backache of hauling around Double D's on HIS body, Let him have 6 months of periods and cramps, and having to go to work clean the dishes and take care of the kids despite that, fear of rape and pregnancy, being hooted at, unwanted ass pats and be objectified, Let him be humiliated if they are not thin enough , pushed from all sides to look pretty or be ignored , sexually put in the objectified role..assumed they will be doing the chores of housecleaning laundry ect..having to wear womens crappy synthetic clothes,bras ,high heels panty hose, treated like a lessor. Would these males finally see how ugly their sexist"bonding rituals" really are.
Sometimes I really get pissed off enough at what men do to say I hate men, but what I really hate is the concept of gender inequality. And Yes Men cause the inequality by refusing to see their"privileges" come at the expense of women.Maybe if men saw how much it hurt they might realize their privileges are doing more to harm to women than they ever wanted to dare imagine.

[Morgana LaFey]

51. Terrific rant

thanks

[undergroundpanther]

61. I could've been more

ranty, but at some point some males don't hear the hurt,in the rant, instead they just get defensive because they might feel ashamed and go into denial, pull social rank and get all sexist to shut you up , it's a true coward's cop out.

[femrap]

74. Cowards, like *. nt

[Morgana LaFey]

103. Oh, honey, most of them are going to get all defensive and sexist

whether they can "hear" the hurt or not.

But if you've gotten some (any!) to hear the hurt and care, I salute you, I really do. Keep up the good work. My experience is that they are overwhelmingly IMMUNE to the hurt. Hell, it's that very hurt that makes them feel like real men.

[noamnety]

56. One of the guys at the high school where I work

dressed up in a skirt and put his longish hair in two pony tails. He's on the short thin side of things, so from a distance, he didn't look like a football player in drag or anything out of the ordinary. Just a person in a skirt. And then he and two of the women in the Gay Straight Alliance (one of them his girlfriend) dressed down in decidedly asexual clothes (shapeless flannel) and they went for a walk. He had a taste of life as a woman, for a few minutes - guys driving by were honking at him, hitting on him, etc. It was a whole different world than what he experiences normally.

Forget the 6 months. I'd be satisfied if guys even had to do that, just spend a half hour like that, and then imagine the rest of their lives like that on display with men feeling entitled to assess them and rate them loudly every time they are out in public.

[Triana]

70. The BIGGEST male privilege ...

...is not being aware of just how privileged they are.

OOOOOblivious.

[Quantess]

168. The BIGGEST male privilege ...is not being aware of just how privileged they are.

Obvious to me, and you, and other women.
Not at all apparent to most men.

[Mad_Dem_X]

96. YES! Terrific post!

:applause:

[bumblebee1]

165. Six months???

Most men couldn't take it a day much less 6 months worth of the day to day life of a woman.

[Morgana LaFey]

53. Not one male who deigned to grace this thread with their presence

were pro-women and non-sexist enough to even listen, let alone actually voice support of anything that was said here. Every single one of them had to be a naysayer. Every one.

A good many of them were "but what about the objectification of MEN? THat happens too." They just can't stand that it's not about THEM.

I'm sure this is no different from the other threads in this forum, and that's disgusting and despicable.

Shame on DU. Shame on whowever contributes sexist renarks (and graphics), shame on those who are silent in the face of rampant sexism, shame on those DU men and women who don't challenge each and every single occurrence of sexism found anywhere at DU -- starting with the practice of referring to rightwing women as bitches and whores, or railing against Laura Bush's appearance and wardrobe. Shame on those DU women who don't get it and, as we saw earlier in the thread, don't have the good sense to R$ESEARCH and LEARN why some of us object to this or that but think instead they know it all and choose to contradict us in their willful ignorance.

[omega minimo]

59. Sounds pretty regressive, don't it?

You're right.

A lot of them are afraid and just buy the cliches they're fed. Most of the skirmishes involve sloganeering buzzwords and people talking past each other.

"A good many of them were "but what about the objectification of MEN? THat happens too." They just can't stand that it's not about THEM."

It's like trying to convince fish that water exists.

[undergroundpanther]

62. Problem is they LIKE the privilege

It props up their egos and makes their ego feel superior like no matter how much of an asshole they are at least they are not a dumb b*tch, nagging Tw*t or whatever.
You know after all the cowardice I see here the so called 'feminist men' staying quiet like chicken shits and they not making a peep of support, IN PUBLIC where they might be seen as FEMINIST SYMPATHIZERS! to they boys... I must admit I feel a stinging bitter hate twords men a little bit more than I did before.After the last yahoo I dated,that I wasted ten years on. I am never touching another male and trusting them in a relationship with me again..because I found by experience and by observation alot of men are hypocritical insecure needy cowards, they like the privileged status too much to even try living the gender equality,they say they support feminism but fail to DO IT,like they fail to listen or help. So this tells me most men are incapable of an equal relationship..If this is so, I want no more relationships with men.

[NobleCynic]

64. Be aware of when you cross the line between helping and hurting

There is a point beyond which you're no longer educating, no longer preaching, no longer debating. Simply insulting.

It is automatic for people to react defensively when attacked, and when you attack without quarter, it is impossible to lend aid or agree without reservation.

I agree in principle with most, if not all, of your beliefs. I disagree with your tactics.

[undergroundpanther]

67. Let me ask you this

How much hurt do I have to endure before I say enough and fight back to prevent further wounding?

I cannot continue to play nice when the others refuse to be civil,in return forever. At some point I have to draw a boundary. And if my boundary offends those who would violate it. Well, too frickin' bad.
Also I am expressing how being in a culture so accepting and tolerant of misogyny FEELS to me. If that feeling spoken out loud offends some guys, well, tough. Maybe misogynist and bystander men should get to know how it feels. That misogyny it makes me sick inside and angry and feel hatred twords men who think it's OK to oppress me and it makes me sickened by the men who stand by condoning it,the hurting of my gender men call a call 'privilege' that seems so natural to them they don't even see it when they invoke it,' a systematic culturally condoned abuse that's aimed at me or other women .

[NobleCynic]

69. Venting one's anger? No problem there.

Blindly accusing anyone who doesn't instantly and completely agree with is however.

Not that that is what you are doing necessarily, it's just how many posts in this thread come off as.

When you reach the point where you are discouraging sympathetic or allied men from offering assistance, you've gone farther than tactical wisdom would dictate.

[noamnety]

72. How do you normally handle sexist posts on DU?

Have you spoken out against sexism on DU before, and you're finding this particular thread to be discouraging you in your efforts for some reason? Or are you someone that is generally condoning that behavior through silence?

Not that I've found anything in undergroundpanther's posts deterring anyone from speaking out against sexism here, mind you - I see a lot more effort from the porn defenders and rape comedians to discourage folks from speaking out against sexism than I do from the feminists here, so that comment is a bit puzzling.

This was a great post on refusing to take part (by being present without voicing an objection) in offensive conversations: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2978125

Speak up, or leave, or act like we enjoy (or at least accept) being objectified so as not to offend those doing the objectification ... those seem to be the choices we face.

This isn't the most organized post I've ever made, but I guess what I'm working toward is wondering which tactic you yourself use, and why you feel like your moral obligations are affected by the tactics someone else chooses. Maybe you could point us to a post where you've spoken out in a way that you think does a better job of educating without

you know, I was going to write "without offending the offender" but that just seems so pathetic and absurd as a goal, now that I think about it, like being afraid to call the Kramer dude on his racist tirade for fear of offending him.

[NobleCynic]

76. You misunderstand me on several fronts

First, I was not accusing undergroundpanther or her posts of discouraging speaking out on the issue. The initial reply was not to one of her comments.

Second, I was trying to communicate that scorched earth all or nothing statements make it more difficult to defend feminism. There is a difference between attacking the silent observers for not standing up to sexism and asking the silent observers to help fight sexism. Hell, how some of these posts have been phrased, they are attacks on anyone who doesn't take the most extreme position possible.

Lastly, it foolish not to realize there is a fairly large middle ground on the issue. Most people strongly agree with equal pay for equal work. Domestic abuse is no longer publicly accepted. However, most people are not going to remove gender from language. It hurts quantifiable issues when you take such a confrontational stand on linguistic matters. People have and always will use sexist language. Schadenfreude dictates so. The quantifiable variables we can work toward fixing, we can achieve wage equality, we can achieve political equality, yet there will never be linguistic equality. People concentrate on differences when tearing each other down, and sex is only one of the most obvious to capitalize on. Unless you can provide for a fundamental change in human nature, you're not going to get rid of sexist language.

Please understand I'm not saying that this is a good thing. I'm saying that fighting it may be a lost cause, and fighting it in ways that can hurt substantive progress in other areas may be downright foolish.

(Editted to add the following)

I am unsure as to whether or not I've publicly attacked sexism in any of my previous posts. I lack a search function (I know, I know, I keep telling myself I'll get around to donating.) I've probably commented on the issue of wage equality prior to this, but I think may have avoided saying anything in regards to sexist language prior to this thread. I can't be sure.

[noamnety]

79. what is the "most extreme position possible" you're referring to?

I didn't see demands for anything extreme here. I see some women saying behavior that is degrading toward women shouldn't be tolerated here, and berating those who take part in it as well as those who tolerate it without voicing an objection.

This kind of reminds me of being at an anti-war thing recently. We were chalking the names of the fallen on a sidewalk and reading the names of the dead. A veteran came over to watch, and said he didn't like these "extreme" anti-war displays. We had a good long talk, turned out he had a lot of knowledge about PTSD, about sexual assault in the military and spousal abuse, didn't actually approve of the war itself. When he left, we shook hands, and he reiterated that he just didn't like these extremist protests - and he looked over again, looked at someone writing with chalk quietly, and he said, well, I guess this isn't all that extreme.

That's how this thread looks to me, to be honest. I don't see any extremist positions. I see women demanding to be treated with respect, and demanding that if you don't respect a person (for example Laura Bush), then please voice your disrespect in a way that gets to the heart of what you disrespect about her - which ought not to be related to her gender.

It IS a matter of unexamined privilege to assume that half the world should happily accept the other half disrespecting them as a class as a basic fact of life.

I've been putting together a publication for a MLK, Jr. event coming up, and looking at lots of photos as a result. One of the ones that struck me was from the Memphis sanitation workers' strike. Row after row of black men holding signs that said simply "I AM A MAN." There were a lot of images I looked at that had a strong impact, but that one more than the others struck a chord with me. How can so many people feel it so necessary just to try to get a message out that they are basic human beings, deserving of basic respect? That's how I feel sometimes, though. I don't know if you feel that way ever. I'm guessing a number of the women here do.

It's pretty sad - and I don't mean "casually pathetic" but actually emotionally sad - to see posts on a regular basis in the women's rights area or the feminist group, or get messages from people here on DU that either have decided to stop reading GD or are leaving DU altogether because of how women here are discussed. I don't know if men experience the same thing, if there are days when post after post after post here is just so draining and discouraging because they are a constant reminder that you are a second class citizen, aren't respected, your gender is synonymous with weakness and that other gender with strength and courage, and your gender can't be discussed without a f***ability rating being announced as if you exist primarily as a potential object for screwing, and secondly as a person. This affects women in a strong way here sometimes. I don't know if most men realize that; I don't know if any of them care, minus a couple that occasionally speak up. Knowing that is going on, that we've lost a lot of good voices here because of it, it is confusing to me when - even in the women's rights area - we can't discuss that without the men hijacking the thread to say we aren't being sensitive enough to their needs. I don't understand why men DON'T chime in more often to say, look, this is disrespectful, I think it ought to stop. I don't know why their instinct is to say "Y'all ought to learn to accept this as your lot in life."

[NobleCynic]

82. Well put

I wish you the best of luck, I just don't think the language will ever become gender neutral. I'd settle for more civil, but I'm not sure that'll ever happen either.

I understand the problem of perspective however. Most men do not realize when they are saying something that can be seen as sexist. If one was to call Pope Benedict "Pope Palpatine", it isn't considered sexist even though it is poking fun at his physical appearance. Yet if one was to call Margaret Thatcher "old crone", it is a sexist remark. It is a double standard certainly, but one of our (collectively, both men and women) own creation. Because women take insult as a group at the appearance of a female politician or public figure being mocked, it is sexist to make fun of a women's appearance. Because men do not feel the same when a man is made fun of for his appearance, making light of a man's appearance is not sexist. The perspective defines everything.

The question becomes whether or not this reaction is rooted in the relative power of the genders, because women have less power they must band together in defense of one another, or rather because women occupy the lesser social position it is less acceptable to make fun of them than it is men. Or whether there is a more basic physiological cause. (Listed for sake of argument, I'm not advocating or defending it. I mean no offense.) Perhaps it's just tradition or upbringing.

As to changing it, you would have two basic approaches. You could make it acceptable for women to make light of men sexually as well. I think we're moving in this direction currently, for better or worse. Raunch feminism, while ideologically weak and flimsy, may be the only practical solution considering human nature. But only if you can match it with wage parity and social equality. Which we are also moving toward currently, albeit slowly.

Or you could make it unacceptable to make fun of anyone based on gender specific attributes, which I postulate would include making men take offense collectively anytime a male politician is insulted based on his physical appearance. While in theory I suppose this is possible, human nature is a bitter and ugly thing. We tear each other down based on our differences, and gender is always right out there in the forefront for everyone to see. I express sincere regret at people leaving DU because they are appalled at the language used here, but if they wish to avoid any such language, they will truly be living in a very small world. For better or worse, DU is a big tent, and there are a lot of different people with a lot of different backgrounds here. All I can suggest is to not to take such comments personally, by all means inform the person stating it that it is offensive, but don't take it personally.

Lastly, as to my statement regarding the extremity of the positions here, perhaps I should rephrase it. The position of desiring equality is not extreme. Including equality in language is definitely a little off of moderate. The belief that if you're not standing up to help make it so, you oppose equality is extreme. It may not have been stated so, but that is the implication that will be read by any moderate male on the issue.

(Editted for spelling)

[noamnety]

83. playing around with language

I'm going to put your post into race terms instead of gender terms here just to see where it lands me, since the I AM A MAN signs are still fresh on my brain.
----------------------------------------
I understand the problem of perspective however. Most white people do not realize when they are saying something that can be seen as racist. If one was to call Pope Benedict "Whitey", it isn't considered racist even though it is poking fun at his physical appearance. Yet if one was to call Al Sharpton "blackie", it is a racist remark. It is a double standard certainly, but one of our (collectively, both white and black) own creation. Because black people take insult as a group at the appearance of a black politician or public figure being mocked, it is racist to make fun of a black person's appearance. Because black people do not feel the same when a white person is made fun of for his appearance, making light of a white person's appearance is not racist. The perspective defines everything.

The question becomes whether or not this reaction is rooted in the relative power of the races, because people of color have less power they must band together in defense of one another, or rather because people of color occupy the lesser social position it is less acceptable to make fun of them than it is than white people. Or whether there is a more basic physiological cause. (Listed for sake of argument, I'm not advocating or defending it. I mean no offense.) Perhaps it's just tradition or upbringing.

As to changing it, you would have two basic approaches. You could make it acceptable for black people to make light of white people as well. I think we're moving in this direction currently, for better or worse. While ideologically weak and flimsy, it may be the only practical solution considering human nature. But only if you can match it with wage parity and social equality. Which we are also moving toward currently, albeit slowly.

Or you could make it unacceptable to make fun of anyone based on race specific attributes, which I postulate would include making white people take offense collectively anytime a white politician is insulted based on his physical appearance. While in theory I suppose this is possible, human nature is a bitter and ugly thing. We tear each other down based on our differences, and race is always right out there in the forefront for everyone to see. I express sincere regret at people leaving DU because they are appalled at the language used here, but if they wish to avoid any such language, they will truly be living in a very small world. For better or worse, DU is a big tent, and there are a lot of different people with a lot of different backgrounds here. All I can suggest is to not to take such comments personally, by all means inform the person stating it that it is offensive, but don't take it personally.

Lastly, as to my statement regarding the extremity of the positions here, perhaps I should rephrase it. The position of desiring equality is not extreme. Including equality in language is definitely a little off of moderate. The belief that if you're not standing up to help make it so, you oppose equality is extreme. It may not have been stated so, but that is the implication that will be read by any moderate white person on the issue.

[NobleCynic]

85. Touche

It is rather grating when put in those terms. Not necessarily wrong. But very grating.

In retrospect, it is a perfect example of how perspective helps define the linguistic debate. I saw, and see, nothing outright offensive in the post I made, but you do. Therefore it is sexist. One side believing something is offensive is all it takes for it to be offensive. Whether or not I think it is sexist doesn't matter. If anyone thinks it is, the burden of proof is on me to prove it isn't. Which I can't.

But if you're going to edit someone's work, please do so consistently. First paragraph, second to last sentence should read "Because white..." not "Because black..."

[noamnety]

95. At 3am

Consistency isn't always my strong point. :) Apologies about the mis-phrasing.

I think it's more than just "one side thinks it's sexist" and more than just a matter of perspective. This reminds of the Disney version of Pocahontas, where the warring between the white men and the indigenous people was made out to be a matter of "perspective" - the white men saw indians as savages, and the indians saw white men as savages, in the world according to Disney, and if we could just all get along and see things from the other person's point of view, both sides would kiss and make up.

But that's not really how it was. The reality is that one side stole the land from the other, desecrated their graves, and committed genocide. Recognizing who is oppressing and who is being oppressed is more than just a matter of perspective.

This is why it's one thing for a Katrina victim to speak in disparaging terms about Bush, and a whole other thing entirely for Bush to speak disparagingly about Katrina victims. And it's why, if a Katrina victim is complaining about Bush, mocking him - even mocking him in a way that is unfair - I am not overly concerned with spending my energy stepping in to say I think you ought to treat him with some basic respect. Even if they OUGHT to treat him with respect because gosh darn it he's a human being with feelings, too - it's not an equivalent situation. And I think most people can understand that, because when we are talking specifically about Katrina victims and one man, Bush, we all can see that Bush is the one in a position of privilege, and we aren't challenging your personal privilege.

It's why the women here get fed up with what sometimes feels like every thread about oppression of women getting hijacked into men demanding that women spend equal time acknowledging the needs and feelings of men, when it is women who don't have equal pay, it is women who don't have equal access to health care, it's women who cannot go for a walk alone without being aware of their circumstances and being conscious of the fact that they might be raped, and it is women who are receiving the nonstop message that if they are in public without the burka, if they go into public office or appear on tv, men WILL view them and discuss them and rate them as if they were a piece of meat, and it is women who are expected to graciously accept depictions of themselves as primarily receptacles for men's penises, and if we reject that ubiquitous portrayal than we are told to lighten up and get a sense of humor. Not so long ago, black people were expected to have a sense of humor about comedians wearing black face. That didn't make it okay.

I don't know too many classes of people who are oppressed who have the energy to spend time soothing the souls of the classes of people who are above them in the pecking order. I am sure there are some Walmart supervisors who are darn good people, for example, and unfairly take some indirect heat in discussions about that company. But I think it's reasonable for Walmart workers to be able to talk about mistreatment by management without having to preface each statement with "Not all managers do this," and I don't think it's reasonable for the managers to demand that the workers spend part of their energy making the managers as a whole don't feel personally insulted.

[Morgana LaFey]

106. The people who get to define racism and sexism are the people

who are harmed and affected by it, not those guilty of it.

The dominant culture (white, male) THINKS it gets to define everything. One of the big problems and causes of racism and sexism is the dominant culture trying and too often succeeding at defining things in ways that please and benefit ThEM, not necessarily in ways that are true and accurate, but almost always in ways that disadvantage those thus defined.

That you think it's appropriate for ONLY those of us affected by racism and sexism to define what racism and sexism are is unfair is yet more evidence of your sense of entitlement to white male privilege.

HOW DOES IT FEEL TO HAVE PEOPLE TELL YOU WHAT'S WHAT, and you have no real, valid standing on which to argue with it? That's not WHY "we" get to define what is and what isn't racism and sexism, but it IS an object lesson for you. If you pay attention, you can learn how it feels to be "other," to be 2nd class citizen. Imagine ALWAYS being defined by others, always being at a disadvantage, always told how to behave "or else" (as you yourself have done in this thread).

Now, because the charge is always raised in discussions like this, let me hasten to assure you that what women want is NOT to turn the tables on men and to install some powerful women-over-men matriarchal society. Not at all. What we want is equality for all. SOME feminists want nothing to do with men (separatists), and I can understand that and sometimes feel the same way, but there's no harm if they're able to do that for themselves. The rest of society can go on without them. It is a mark of how deeply and profoundly and unalterably they have been wounded by Patriarchy.

[NobleCynic]

115. The problem with treating disagreement as an attack is that it is too easy

to read to wrong intent from someone's words. If I made myself unclear I apologize.

Yes. The offended party gets to decide what is offensive and what is not. It is neither fair or unfair that this how it is. I did not mean to imply that it was unfair. I mean that it simply is.

Next, where have I told you to behave or else? Your insistence on reading everything that is not in full agreement with your paradigm as an attack on the validity of all feminist thought is warping my words far beyond their original intentions and meanings. If you took anything I have said to mean that, it is an implication placed by you, found by you, and read by you.

[Morgana LaFey]

118. I don't think you made yourself unclear at all

The problem is that most of what you say is either sexist itself and you're not aware of it, or supports sexism in society as something that can't be done away with, simply as a failure of imagination and, I believe, a lack of will on your part to see things change anyway.

Next, where have I told you to behave or else?

Repeatedly. When you caution us that what you perceive to be our shrill words offend and drive away more support than they attract, THAT is telling us how to behave.

Etc.

[smirkymonkey]

148. Hear, hear!

Brilliant post. Unfortunately, today I am too filled with rage to come up with anything but an angry incoherent rant, but you put in to words exactly what I am feeling and thinking. Thanks.

[Morgana LaFey]

105. But you know what?

Or you could make it unacceptable to make fun of anyone based on gender specific attributes, which I postulate would include making men take offense collectively anytime a male politician is insulted based on his physical appearance. While in theory I suppose this is possible, human nature is a bitter and ugly thing. We tear each other down based on our differences, and gender is always right out there in the forefront for everyone to see.

Somehow we've learned not to "tear each other down based on our RACIAL differences," despite the fact that RACE is "always right out there in the forefront for everyone to see," haven't we? It's not done in polite company anymore, or on the airwaves, or in print ads, etc. Kramer was recently villified, and for good reason. We COULD adopt similar good taste and decorum about all sexist language.

And btw, you're so off-base about this it's not even funny: I just don't think the language will ever become gender neutral.

Who was calling for completely gender neutral language? I didn't see it in this thread. Why did you go THERE, instead of the myriad other ways sexism rears its ugly head in our culture (e.g., almost nothing can be marketed to men unless accompanied by images of tits and ass). Plus, there are many things for which we HAVE, for the most part, adopted "gender neutral language." We talk about foodservers instead of waiters and waitresses, we talk about flight attendants instead of stewardesses, about the chairperson or chair of a committee or board instead of chairMAN. And so forth. There's no reason this can't continue. It doesn't mean you can't recognize sex or gender, just that where one or the other gender isn't required, you use the neutral term.

This whole discussion SO illustrates the problem. It's a matter of paradigm, and one half (slighty less) than the population being hopelessly stuck (and loving it) in a limited paradigm in which they overwhelmingly don't even want to THINK that it's possible to stop being sexist. They won't bother to imagine a different way of doing things. It's so ingrained, so thoroughly acculturated, so part of how and what they think at a core level, that it's beyond their ABILITY to even imagine it.

DISgusting.

[NobleCynic]

114. Please don't read the worst possible intent into every word I say,

I'm not saying I like or support the current paradigm. I never said that, and I never implied it. Believing it won't change is not the same as being happy with how it is. I simply have a dim view of human nature.

On the race issue, there is profit in sexism. There is comparatively little profit in racism. That is what makes the issues different. And that makes sexism so much more difficult to eradicate.

You are correct in pointing out that polite language is moving toward gender neutrality, although in my experience in legislative committees recalls madam chairwoman and madam speaker being used extensively, waitress still being more common in diners and restaurants, and stewardess still used on airlines. Language is nonetheless moving in that direction, and you are correct that there is no reason it can't continue to do so. Impolite language however is what I was referring to. And impolite language will never move away from sexist terminology.

Maybe you're right. Maybe my pessimism on the issue is disgusting.

[Morgana LaFey]

119. Au contraire

On the race issue, there is profit in sexism. There is comparatively little profit in racism.

There is enormous profit in racism. One "profit" out of racism was nearly free labor. Whenever you can exploit the labor of others -- for free or for viciously low wages (which all racism enables and promotes) -- you gain a profit.

There is also enormous "profit" in the fact that the dominant culture (white, male) doesn't have to compete in the workforce with X-number of members of the human race. THere have been -- and still are -- enormous numbers of actual betters who aren't being given the opportunity to live their lives to the fullest and self-actualize purely BECAUSE of racism and sexism. Lotsa "profit" there for the white males who take their places instead, undeservedly.

No wonder white males tremble at the thought of true equality. They DO have something to lose.

But they have a lot to gain as well. Their humanity, for one. An easier life with fewer gender expectations for another. And there are more, but y purpose here isn't trying to "sell" equality to feeble, cowardly men who are intimidated by the prospect.

[lukasahero]

88. O.M.G. BRAVO!!!!!!

Best post I have read here in a long, long time.

Thank you so much, lwfern, for truly getting to the heart of it.

Bravo.

[Morgana LaFey]

104. Here's a clue for you

Or several.

First, no, the "normal behavior" of people being attacked ISN'T necessarily to become defensive and attack back. The NORMAL behavior of people who give a damn about the relationship,whether very personal (e.g., intimate) relationship or just between people in a community such as this is to say, "Wait, what did I do? I don't understand. How can I make this right?"

Second, the name of this forum is Women's Rights. Not "slugfest between men and women," but Women's Rights. Personally, I think it's an abysmal fucking ASSAULT on Women's Rights that there's any argumentation by MEN allowed in here, just as I think it's an abysmal fucking ASSAULT to have anti-religious tirades by atheists and such in the Religion and Theology Forum. I'm sure my take isn't shared by the administration here (otherwise things would be different), but that only means we apparently disagree, not that I'm wrong.

My point is: WHO CARES WHAT YOU THINK? I didn't post the OP or any other post in this to win friends and infuence people, ferchrissake. It's the WOMEN'S RIGHTS forum, not the "Let's hit our heads against the wall again and again trying to plead with men who don't want to get it to please, please, please get it" forum.

When you reach the point where you are discouraging sympathetic or allied men from offering assistance, you've gone farther than tactical wisdom would dictate.

Oh, that's just a crutch, and you know it deep in your own heart. There's no discouragement here, only threats to your white male privilege. I guaran-goddamn- tee you that the MEREST (sincere) pro-woman, feminist comments by any male in this forum would be met with such overwhelming applause and wild enthusiastic acceptance that it would nearly scare him off, for fear of being suffocated with cyber hugs and kisses. Ain't gonna happen.

FURTHER, why the hell should WE be the ones required to make nice and satisfy certain requirements (always changing, mind you -- as always) in order to get some action? IT'S ABOUT EQUALITY, dammit, not special favors. EQUALITY. No human should be UNequal, not even women.

Fuck that shit. Now I'm really angry.

FINALLY, if you fancy yourself a "sympathetic or allied man," they by Goddess, step right up and prove it. Stop being such a freakin' coward. You afraid of those other boys who're gonna call you a girley-man or worse?

Get out of here, trying to dictate to us how we SHOULD behave in order to earn our equality and our rights. Like I said: fuck that shit.

[omega minimo]

84. Be aware of when you cross the line between pontificating and patronizing

You start off "simply insulting."

"It is automatic for people to react defensively when attacked, and when you attack without quarter, it is impossible to lend aid or agree without reservation."

This reversal and falsification of the thread that "people" "react defensively when attacked" -- implying that the men were wronged here somehow and that the OP was guilty of "attack without quarter" rendering it "impossible to lend aid or agree without reservation" is completely and irredeemable disingenuous. Nice job. The pompous, maligned-yet-polite-and-helpful tone was a nice touch.

This is a total mindfuck version of the OP's "tactics." It certainly is not "helping."

What the OP did was:

Point out:
"Men use the objectification and denigration of women as a way to "bond." That undercuts any and all efforts by women to achieve "equality" in profound ways that literally NO amount of lobbying or working or wishing and hoping can ever, ever overcome."

Provide context:
"I've never this objectification-as-group-bonding so blatantly expressed and demonstrated (yet, it drew no remarks or criticism that I know of) ....Matthew Broderick and Danny DeVito were in a scene in which they were in the audience watching some sexily-dressed women on an outdoor stage, and shouting sexist insults as a way to impress one another, share something in common (their superiority over women, their inherent "right" as men to shout such remarks at the women), get to know one another better, and, well, bond. What I found even more alarming and disheartening was that that is exactly how Danny DeVito actualy set up the clip: here are these two wildly different characters in a scene of "male bonding."

Ask the question:
"I see this "male bonding" and plenty of other sexism here at DU too, of course, as I know all of you do. Is there some reason more women don't challenge the rather rampant sexism here?"

And request:
"Oh -- one request. As the male naysayers who simply can't leave this forum alone come in, please just totally, TOTALLY ignore them. It'll drive them so crazy they'll have to leave the forum out of frustration! IOW: don't feed the trolls. Not even one tiny crumb. PLEASE."



The thread grew and the replies from both "sides" with women generally honoring the OPs request to ignore "male naysayers."

And as noted here, long before the OP vented her frustration in the post you are replying to, the "male naysayers" were the only ones to show up.


omega minimo (1000+ posts)  Tue Dec-26-06 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
21. 

"I'll ask the question of how that's different from a right-wing radio host asking why we don't see "all those supposedly good Muslims stepping up to the plate"? Group guilt went out a long time ago."

"Most Porn is covered by a constitutional right. It is called the first amendment. What part of it should be abrogated for the sensibilities of some women or men?......But Pr0n is not simply about violence, unless you believe all sex to be violence against women."

"Right, when men do it, it's disgusting chauvanism, When women do it, it's a 'few bad apples'. Gotcha!...

"How disgusting this is is only magnified by the fact that Women don't ever behave similarly. Why, I can't for the life of me imagine women ever getting together and bashing men or demeaning them in any way. Sexism, like racism, only works one way after all. I suppose my mentioning that makes me a man?"

"At least, according to Danny DeVito...who as we all know, the men of the planet Earth elected as their representative during our secret underground meetings - after the gang rape, of course. What, do you think we really play golf?"

"And women dont do this right back at men? Perhaps not to the same extent that men do, but they do it all the same.... Women and men also denigrate others of the same sex and here women are the worst offenders. Men on the outs tend to be on the outs across the board, whilst women will switch allegiances at the drop of a hat depending on who is present (and perhaps more importantly who is not)."

"You've won the ruddy war ladies, so stop your bloody whining about how bad you still have it and just get on with mopping up the last pockets of resistance. O.K.?"

:evilfrown:


By the time women here CORRECTLY comment on the presence of male abuse and lack of male support, more males show up to claim that if ONLY women would do it in a way these males approve of, they would support women, but now those darn women have gone and used the wrong tactics and insulted the poor men.


WE HAVE HEARD IT ALL BEFORE. ALL THE SAME BULLSHIT. ALL THE SAME "TACTICS." ALL THE SAME REVERSALS AND FALSE ACCUSATIONS AND IT'S ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ABOUT THE MEN, SOMEHOW, INEVITABLY, IT'S ABOUT THE BLOODY MEN'S FEELINGS.

So, please. The OP's post that you are replying to is true, valid and has nothing to do with "tactics." She was openminded enough to start the thread and prescient enough to suggest we ignore "male naysayers" but after EVERY SINGLE MALE REPLY was antagonistic, even the OP had had enough of this bullshit.

Including when it's wrapped in patronizing terms or a petulant, quasi-supportive rant like this:

"Or maybe many of us agree with you in principle but find the hostility and broadbrushing expressed in this thread to be repellent. In general, I find that hateful rants tend to be counterproductive, and they generate exactly the kind of responses that fuel your gross generalizations. If you really want feminist men to jump in and support you, you might think about not painting us all as misogynistic shits and actually trying to have a dialog."



Always somehow about the poor widdle boys and how they have to PREAPPROVE the conditions of the their support and women always have to jumpt through THEIR hoops to deserve it. And this is a "feminist man"?


Unbelievable.

[femrap]

75. Having been around for awhile....

I saw what happened in the '60's and '70's where the Women's Movement was front and center. The boys grew their hair, mellowed out with pot, said they wanted peace and love, yet when it came right down to it....they were NOT going to give up their power. PERIOD.

I don't think it was as blatant then as it is now though. Boys today are vehement about their machismo....but that machismo is destroying this entire planet. There is no respect for Mother Nature...and well, we know what happens when she isn't respected....you can't eat money and live.

Supposedly, this imbalance of extreme machismo is to come to an end soon. In order to save their own asses, they will have to educate themselves.

Let's believe that.

[omega minimo]

77. "Supposedly, this imbalance of extreme machismo is to come to an end soon."

How so? :popcorn:

[femrap]

97. Supposedly people are going to realize that

if this machismo doesn't come to an end, the rich white boys with their corporations are going to destroy the planet. And people are waking up....look at the past election. And look at what is happening in South America...Boliva, in particular.

The Age of Aquarius is coming....and then there is the Mayan calendar and 2012 brings in a new age. I know...all so 'new agey' and touchy/feely, but I don't think most people want to live with gas masks or without clean water. People are beginning to realize that the masculine model is just too damn destructive...the feminine has much to offer the world. Cooperation will be valued. Domination is over.

After all, it's not called Father Nature, right?

Or maybe the Rapture will take all the assholes out of here and we can then live in peace! lol!

[Name removed]

78. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MountainLaurel]

139. That's fairly standard

And an example of the problem.

[sniffa]

144. ...

:rofl:

you shouLd reaLLy get out more.

[Nikia]

98. Some sexist threads make me want to bang my head against the wall

It seems as if though some people will never understand.
I agree that some and perhaps most men use misogyny to bond. Those men who are relatively non sexist often remain silent or even join in whatever way allows them not to be too offensive to women. It seems that the unspeakable crime for a male in another male's eyes is to identify with a woman.
I have more thoughts on the subject, but am too angry for them to come out right.

[Morgana LaFey]

107. Please come back and share when you can

This was pretty profound, IMO: It seems that the unspeakable crime for a male in another male's eyes is to identify with a woman.

That's the whole thing behind homophobia. I wish more gay men (and women, too, I suppose) would understand that it's misogyny fueling the whole kit and kaboodle. Maybe someday.

[TheMadMonk]

112. Lovely double standard here.

"Oh -- one request. As the male naysayers who simply can't leave this forum alone come in, please just totally, TOTALLY ignore them. It'll drive them so crazy they'll have to leave the forum out of frustration! IOW: don't feed the trolls. Not even one tiny crumb. PLEASE."

You say "girls please don't feed the trolls" and then many many of you immediately jump down the throats of men who don't immediately don their shining armour and come galloping to your rescue.

Have you ever considered that we too might be treating the arseholes amongst us with the disdain they deserve?

I waste enough of my time here just dealing with the substantiative issues, without fighting a lost cause against dickheads who won't change and aren't worth the effort of trying.

Eventually they'll die. And if the traitors on your side of the gender divide would just stop breeding with them, they wouldn't have sons to whom they can pass on their hateful legacy, and the breed would die out a hell of a lot sooner. For those who are forced to be broodmares by circumstances beyond their control, I am truly sorry, but I am unable to effect wholesale change in places where I have no influence whatsoever.

I comment on the amazing speed at which the cause of women has advanced over the past century or so and I get royally reamed because I can't complete the progression with "And today everything's hunky dory." (I got reamed too for my choice of illustrative phrase. I deserved that, though I say in my defense that there was no malice intended, it was just one of my usual hamfisted attempts at hyperbole.)

No everythinmg is not hunky dory. Is that good? Of course it bloody isn't. It is however (for the most part) slightly better than it was last year and almost immeasurably so compared to a century ago, or in other parts of the world today. What can be done to change things for the better? The simple and somewhat sad answer is, smack down the most egregious offenders as best and hard as we can, and wait for the brainless twits to die. Hopefully without issue.

In between, those of us who can be influenced, do slowly grow up. I shudder when I look back at myself in my teens/twenties. Am I completely cured? Not entirely. But I do feel shame if I screw up and I do try to do better next time.

[NobleCynic]

116. A peace offering, and well put.

I apologize for the snark I treated you with earier in the thread.

I can only hope that no unwarranted ill intent is read into your comment.

(Editted for grammar)

[Morgana LaFey]

121. The double standard you mention

I was the first one who broke my own rule, and admitted as such.

As for your "support" -- it doesn't FEEL like support (at ALL) when you point out that things are better than they once were. Rather, it feels like naysaying, and trivializing, and dismissing what's being said and complained about. "Shut up, you've got it better than women used to have it, what the hell do you WANT, anyway? Women! Nevvver satisfied. Never."

If you were TRYING to come to our rescue (how patronizing, just for starters!!) -- you missed.

Have you ever considered that we too might be treating the arseholes amongst us with the disdain they deserve?

Uh, you mean in private perhaps? In your own homes, sotto voce, unheard by any other living creature except your dog or cat? 'Cause I sure as hell ain't seen it HERE. You have my permission -- make that a request -- to PM me the very next time you stand up to the sexists in any thread, and be sure to include the link. I will heap praise all over you. And call my sisters to do the same.

For those who are forced to be broodmares by circumstances beyond their control, I am truly sorry, but I am unable to effect wholesale change in places where I have no influence whatsoever.

Um, I'm terribly sorry. You seem to think of yourself as a good guy. Perhaps you are, and maybe your heart is in the right place, but buddy, you've got a LOT to learn. My fear is that you're not just unwilling to effect "wholesale change," you're also willing to TRY to effect any small retail changes, thread by thread, right here at DU.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong. Send me those PMs. I'll be waiting.

[noamnety]

122. Morgana, aren't you being a little harsh?

You almost make it sound like referring to women as broodmares is offensive in some way. ;)

[Morgana LaFey]

135. Yes, I do believe I was

Obviously, my standards and expectations are WAY too high, too excessive. The average -- and even above average -- progressive male must surely bend and break under the sheer weight of the burden, it so extensive.

Snork.

I just loved this line:

On a fourum such as DU where I have to do more than just open my mouth, I don't usually bother. I just plain isn't worth expending any effort for what I know will be zero result.

Poor, poor overburdened soul. We'd better rush in and save HIM from all the excessive burdens he's placed upon himelf, having to contemplate all this. We woudln't want to wear him out or anything.

:sarcasm:

And of course, expend NO effort --> zero result every damn time. Funny how that works, eh?

[TheMadMonk]

123. Women must ignore lousy men. Good men must defend. women.

That is the double standard I see.

Actually what I was attempting to say was: "Shut up and stop complaining about things that only time will cure and focus on the issues where improvement CAN be effected."

Things are better and they continue to improve over time. I say this and I get blasted. I say that the journey is not over and there is a ways to go. I get blasted for that too. I say that we are headed down the right path. And I get blasted because it's not fast enough to suit you. You insist that compliance with your demands be instantaneous and that until compliance happens all males will collectively be held responsible for the behaviour of a few. Maybe you should check out the term misandry.

I did NOT say I was coming to your rescue. I said that we males have been roundly blasted apparently for not coming to your rescue. "Do what I mean, not what I say." ranks right up there with "If you don't know. I won't tell you."

And now you want me to document my not responding to idiots by directing you to my responses? Excuse me?

Just how do you propose I effect wholesale change? Should I reform fundamentalist Islam, Christianity and Judaism all at once or may I tackle them one religion at a time?

I'll presume you mean UN-willing to effect retail change.

Well this isn't DU. However, many moons ago I had a good friend who had a boyfriend with a vile temper. Once upon a time he saved her life, so to her he could do no wrong. Talking to the bloke would not have had any appreciable effect, except possibly to get my head kicked in. What I did do, was not go home, if he was in one of his "moods" until he calmed down. He even seemed to appreciate my passive intervention somewhat. Once calm, he'd tell me: "O.K. you can fuck off now."

Perfect? By no means. But there wasn't much else I could do, since Sandy would do nothing to help herself.

And I do try to pull the emotionally immature up when their language goes entirely beyond the pale. To date my best result was about thirty seconds to the next MILF comment or obscenity. That's in person. I know I'm wasting my breath, but I speak up anyway. On a fourum such as DU where I have to do more than just open my mouth, I don't usually bother. I just plain isn't worth expending any effort for what I know will be zero result.

I do what I can, where it might or can make a difference. But I won't run my head into a brick wall just because you (or anyone else) would like to see me do it.

[noamnety]

124. dude, don't you get tired of digging that hole you're in?

"Shut up and stop complaining about things that only time will cure"

That's a joke, right? Kind of like if you went into a room of black people, you'd tell them to "shut up and stop complaining" about racism - and then you'd all have a good laugh together?

Seriously, don't go into a forum where people are discussing women's rights - and tell the women there to shut up.


(If you have a chance, do take a look at the Light and Shadow post I put up in the women's rights area tonight.)

[bettyellen]

130. gosh, your abuser friend really appreciated your help, how nice!

why the fuck didn;t you ever call the cops if you knew him to be violent? you're the one who said STFU, the laws will change things.
you think you deserve a prize for again, doing nothing!

[noamnety]

131. Not unlike Ford pardoning his buddy Nixon

(The laws apparently work best when those with privilege shield each other from them. It's for the good of the country, keeps things running smoothly.)

I've been reading some MLK, Jr., lately. The Letter from Birmingham Jail says what several of us have been saying, but with some grace and eloquence which I don't have. (Note: long quote should be okay as letter is now in the public domain.)

We have waited .for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God- given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we stiff creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six- year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you no forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. (lwfern's note: kind of like having a law against domestic violence, and then making sure your personal buddies aren't subject to it.)

... I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fan in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with an its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

... I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "An Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely rational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this 'hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to 6e solid rock of human dignity.

... Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or. unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides-and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist.

... I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some-such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle---have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach-infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as "dirty nigger lovers." Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of segregation.

In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.

[bettyellen]

132. it's telling he wants an award for helping an abuser and makes excuses why it's not

worth calling people on their shitty sexist behavior.
sitting around and waiting seems to be the poster MO.
Thank god my daddy raise me to expect better than that.

[Morgana LaFey]

134. Astonishingly apropos

Nuggets of uncanny direct applicability everywhere, among them this whole paragraph:

.. I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

[bettyellen]

136. "paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom"

that is the rub.

[Morgana LaFey]

133. quie possibly the best description of male privelege ever --

you think you deserve a prize for again, doing nothing!


ABSOLUTELY priceless.

[Morgana LaFey]

137. Truly amazing

It's utterly fascinating the lengths you will go to in order to see yourself as some knight in white shining armor. Others have really responded with more insight and eloquence than I, but I didn't want to leave your post completely unaddressed.

Actually what I was attempting to say was: "Shut up and stop complaining about things that only time will cure and focus on the issues where improvement CAN be effected."

And by what mechanism will "time" -- on its own -- make those corrections? We've been "one down," as the saying goes, for 3 or 4 MILLENNIA now (that's 3 or 4 THOUSAND YEARS). How long would you have us wait, and during the waiting time again: by what natural mechanism is this goint to get fixed? (Be sure to read MLK's remarks before you even try to answer this, 'kay?)

Things are better and they continue to improve over time. I say this and I get blasted.

Well, part of the reason has already been addressed: don't come into a Women's Rights forum and tell the women there that they don't know what they're talking about and have no real reason to complain.

But there's a larger issue too -- one that goes BEYOND my previous question ("by what mechanism") -- and that is:

THINGS AREN'T GETTING BETTER ALL THE TIME; THEY ARE, IN FACT, GETTING WORSE.

There has been a serious backlash against women's rights, pushing women ever back and back and back, since the 1980s -- well documented at the time in the marvelous book, Backlash by Susan Faludi. Every day I see a small or large retrenchment of the gains we'd once made. Every day I have more reason to fear that things could get VERY bad for us.

And frankly, the "lukewarm Christians," to coin a phrase, or "moderates" that MLK spoke of, fill me with terror. WHEN will they too be able to see that things are eroding for us, not advancing? And once they see it (if they ever do), will they CARE, or just be privately delighted that their former magnificence -- based so entirely on an artificial and externally-enforced inferiority of women -- will shortly be restored in full?

Frankly, there aren't very many men I trust would be on our side. And I for darn sure wouldn't look to DU to find any.

So, here's a suggestion for you: I think you're a lost cause, a hopeless case. And I think you'd agree (or already have, depending on how one reads your post.) Why not just quit this forum and go somewhere else to lick the massive wounds you've acquired while being so dreadfully misunderstood here? There are plenty of playgrounds at DU -- no reason you need to concern yourself with a subject you so clearly don't understand and aren't constitutionally able to anyway. It's not noble or admirable to keep trying, it's just more wear and tear on your poor overburdened self. We won't think less of you if you do.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

138. Machismo as Male Bonding, Exhibit A: Street Taunts

When I was a teenager, my mom always told me to ignore catcalls from groups of men on the street. For a while, I ignored her advice and responded with an angry comment, but then I noticed that even my negative reactiond had the guys laughing, punching each other in the "buddy" way that immature guys do, and even high-fiving one another.

It was a male bonding game. The object was to get a reaction, any reaction. The jerk who got a reaction was the winner of that round.

That's when I realized that my mom was right. The best thing I could do with the lame brains who stand around in groups and make obscene remarks or gestures to women on the street was ignore them (since decking them was out of the question).

Interestingly, the bozos never taunt a woman who is in the company of a man. (They seem to think she's his property or something, like their brother bozos in the Middle East who will grab at an unaccompanied, unveiled woman but not one who is escorted by a man.) That's why so many men who are not themselves perpetrator of this street game are unaware of how vicious it can get.

[raccoon]

152. Sure they don't.

"Interestingly, the bozos never taunt a woman who is in the company of a man. "

If she's in the company of a man, she's private property. If she isn't, she's public property. :puke:

[Madspirit]

140. I see it

On one of the rape posts, after a blatantly pro-rape Idiot posted, some of the men did step up to the plate. Most of them apologized to the women. They still didn't really take the guy on. I even see this in real life, chicken shit men, who claim to support women, not having the guts to take on guys who push sexist, misogynist crap.

It sometimes stuns me that right in the rules here, they straight-up say "No Republicans pushing their agendas." They don't seem to care if it's a Democrat pushing a right-wing, blatantly misogynist agenda. I have seen total crap here, pro-pedophiles, cultural relativists defending female genital mutilation, pro-rape, total misogynists....in other words, stuff that the very few Republican friends I have would NEVER say or think but these morons can get away with it because they are Democrats and that evidently is the only requirement for posting here.

I see total trolls, like yesterday on my Animal Rights post, who can't just keep their ugly mouths shut if they don't agree, they also feel compelled to diss, ridicule and be creeps.

I see things here, I wouldn't expect to see anywhere but on a Klan group. I see Daft People and Assholes, etc.

In other words, I agree. There are some big dumb-assed jerks here, with no sensitivity and no idea how to relate to people, especially if they don't agree with something the person says. ALL they know how to do is be mean.
Lee

[smirkymonkey]

149. I hate to say it, but I actually think the Republican men in my

family treat women better than any man here does. At least they can absorb what I (or my sister)am saying and I sense a genuine feeling of guilt and remorse about the situation. Not here. To the DU "Men" we're all a bunch of harpy bitches who just can't recognize how great we have it because were not barefoot, pregnant and getting the crap beat out of us all day. Gosh, If we could only realize how perfect it all is. :eyes:

[noamnety]

150. funny you should say that

after the cpr thing I posted about in another thread here, I had a long discussion with my resident freeper friend - and he got it.

Now today he completely ticked me off again being his freeper self - when it comes to white privilege, he's exactly where DU is on male privilege, but he at least, like you said, absorbed what I was saying without acting like "we need to do something about what's happening to women because goddamn it there are days when it seems every woman I know has been the victim of violence" is code for "all men are inherently evil."

We need more DUers like thomcat and the few other brave souls who listen as well as they talk, and who manage to do it without all the other freeper assholery. I wish I knew how to make that happen.

[Karenina]

156. The reason ThomCat gets it

is that he has the RARE CAPABILITY to STFU and LISTEN. He's NOT formulating his response while skimmimg what he reads, getting his buttons pushed and going into attack or defense mode. HE READS WHAT WAS WRITTEN AND RATHER THAN THINKING ABOUT IT, FEELS IT. He asks questions. He doesn't "assume superiority." He's one of the very few "REAL MEN" on this site IMHO.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

154. And we should graciously sacrifice our issues "for the good of the party"

Whenever it's expedient. Nothing quite like having my concerned liberal brothers tell me I need to compromise on reproductive choice. :eyes:

[bliss_eternal]

155. Well, we've all heard it said before...

...that if men could get pregnant, reproductive choice wouldn't be an issue. ;)

[sniffa]

143. i never tire of morgana threads

you shouLd get out of this forum more.

[Karenina]

157. GANG RAPE n/t

[noamnety]

158. Funny you should post that today.

Post on another forum today, from a person I put on ignore for sexist bullshit (including detailing the purchase of a woman): "all this time you're pissing away ignoring people and highlighting supposed gender inequality as part of a worthless social experiment should be spent getting gangbanged on film for (forumname)'s enjoyment."

Much whining and gnashing of teeth there because I am creating a hostile environment for the men by ignoring people who post porn, apparently. I'm not even telling them not to post it, just opting to ignore those who do. In the patriarchy, I've discovered, it's hostile if women don't view sexist material when men present it to us.

[Karenina]

159. This thread is my first foray

into the Women's Rights forum (Thanks, Morgana, for the link). There are no words to describe what I've felt reading some of the posts here. :crazy::wow::crazy:

[Morgana LaFey]

160. Wait'll you see this

I've alerted AND I've written to Skinner.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3341679

I alerted on this thread, and said we wouldn't allow a link to an article that advocated lynching blacks elsewhere than what was quoted here, nor contained violent anti-Semitic text, there's no reason to allow this either, given its snuff porn nature:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1195381

I believe we need to try to get Skinner to ban Rude Pundit from being posted here. We do it for anti-Semitic content, why not misogynist content?

[noamnety]

161. Thank you.

I alerted on both as well.

Prison rape jokes (rape jokes against men, in other words) are not tolerated here, not even when the MAN is republican.

I see no reason why a "humor" piece with graphic angry details of raping a woman is allowed.

[Morgana LaFey]

162. It's gone now, but that first paragraph was snuff, pure and simple

I was -- and am -- aghast. I'll never forget that DUer and will be on the lookout for more garbage from him.

In the meantime, another thread WITHOUT that key excerpt is still on DU. I pointed out to the mod (different forum) that we wouldn't allow a link to an article that advocated lynching of blacks, or violent anti-Semitism, so this thread should be deleted as well. I guess I wasn't as persuasive:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1195381


Thanks for the reminder re prison rape jokes. I'm going to try to remember that for future reference.

[Katherine Brengle]

164. Because we're just women. nt

[Nikia]

166. I think I finally expressed the point I wanted to make months ago

In post #98.
From my post in the Society Condones Rape thread:
From discussions that I have overheard and discussions that my husband has been present at, a fair amount of men do want to rape women. They might not use their word rape. They do discuss ways though to try to trick women into having sex with them, including getting them very drunk. Unfortunately, my husband hasn't spoken up in every discussion like that which he has been around. Some men are easier for him to stand up, but not men that he feels the need to hang out with again.
When I am around any groups of men, I try to access what category I fall into in relationship to them. There are some groups of men where I realize that I will be sexually harassed (or potentially worse) and none of the men will defend me. There are other groups of men who will not sexually harass me (or worse) and defend me against other men who do. Unfortunately, the group that does not harass me might not make them immune from harassing (or worse) other women. At my last workplace, this fact really bothered me, but I did not break my friendship with those guys there because they protected me from the other men. Despite an allegedly strict sexual harassment policy, I find myself in the same situation and am relying to protect me from fursther harassment on some young men who, while not outright harassing other women, use the same language as the harassers when they talk amongst themselves. I'd rather call them on their behavior, but what choice do I have in this system?
Maybe I have had bad experiences and am drawing conclusions but it seems that most men are alright with certain women (women who they see as lower status and/or not part of their group) being talked about merely as objects, sexually harassed, and even raped while being willing to defend certain (their women) women against this. By being alright with it, I mean not only directly participating but by supporting their friends who do or not challenging them. I don't think that American culture has evolved much past the societies that are acknowledged as repressive towards women.

[Quantess]

169. ...women who they see as lower status and/or not part of their group...

Yes, unfortunately what you said is true. Some women are less deserving of respect and therefore more deserving of sexual harrassment, date rape, you name it!

I consistently had a horrible experience of being a beautiful young woman, in that, men were such knucklehead dumbasses who assumed that because I was young and good looking I must be stupid.
Honestly, I don't know what was going on in their dumb heads when they treated me so, so disrespectfully. Luckily for me, I never was seriously hurt or abused by anyone.
Now that I'm 10 to 20 years older, (I'm 37) I get a lot more respect, and not because I deserve it. It's only because I'm older. I have stayed the same size and body weight for the past 20 years. But now I'm not a "chica" anymore, I'm a "Senorita" or maybe even a "Senora".

On a radio station, I heard a dumb teenage boy say that he singled out girls with piercings and dyed hair because "they had low self esteem" and were easier to manipulate. No one will know if that dumbass' method of scoring is successful, but we are aware he is trying.
;-)

Too many women put up with insults from men! I'm sorry, but men really aren't superior to women. Okay men have their great qualities and their strengths, but that does not mean they can tell women they are nothing. Or...my favorite..."nothing without me". Men really do have some good qualities, but, women have our own excellent qualities.