Making peace with femininity

[Unidian]

Oh come on xerox, "busting attachments" is always the excuse when anti-feminist GF members are confronted about this stuff. Even if we grant that as a motivation, there are a number of equally big (or bigger) attachments to confront which nobody wants to touch. For St Francis' sake, when I'm here, I'm the only one routinely taking on money, work, and all the enormous, huge, EXTRA BIG-ASS attachments on that side of things. Other than me and the occasional supporter I have to pressure and cajole into posting, it's nothing but crickets.

"Busting attachments" doesn't adequately explain the highly disproportionate emphasis on this one particular attachment as far as I'm concerned, especially while equally big (or bigger) ones are virtually ignored.

[Dan Rowden]

One could argue certain attachments give rise to others and therefore the root attachments must be dug out first. Otherwise, they just keep growing back.

[xerox]

...

[Laird]

Dan: You just repeated yourself and made exactly no point. If I believe my views are true, how am I being disrespectful. If you can't make the argument from that perspective, you don't have one.

Laird: OK, well, I believe that it's true that God detests all women and has appointed me as the divine punisher, and that every woman I meet I should strip naked and rape. That wouldn't be disrespectful now, would it? After all, I believe that my views are true.

Dan: Actually, no, it wouldn't be disrespectful. Stupid, maybe, but not disrespectful.

Oh, and did I mention that God has further instructed me that as I rape each woman, I should assail her with aggressive screams along the lines of "You're an ugly slut, a dirty whore, a contemptible bitch, a filthy tramp", that I should shave the hair off her head, that I should laugh viciously at her pleas for mercy, and that I should take pictures of her naked and being raped and distribute them over the internet?

Have I crossed the line yet from "stupid" to "disrespectful"? And if not, then exactly how far away is this line?

[Dan Rowden]

What is respect?

[Laird]

I'd like it if you answered my questions and then I'll answer yours.

[Laird]

By the way Dan, I've thought about your contention that "chauvinist" is a better fit than "misogynist" and I actually agree with you. The dictionary.com definition of chauvinism is "Prejudiced belief in the superiority of one's own gender, group, or kind". That's pretty much an exact fit. And since I'd have to extend the definition of misogyny to get it to fit, I don't see any reason to prefer it. So from now on, I won't refer to you as a misogynist, I'll refer to you as a chauvinist. Phew, I guess I get to keep my beard after all.

[Shahrazad]

Dan,

Change the goals and values and entirely different judgements of inferiority arise.

I will. I value compassion, honesty and non-betrayal of loved ones. Most men I see every day get at most a 2 out of 10 score on those values. So, men are just as (or more) inferior in my eyes as women are in yours.

I'd need some specific examples of where she's gone overboard to be able to say if I agreed or not (with the idea or the expression of it).

In this occasion, my laziness and busyness will work in your favor.

Actually, I didn't defend her against those claims. I defended intellectual rigor against those claims being made without substantiation. I don't need to defend Sue; she's a big girl.

You can slice it any way you want, but in my eyes, you defended her. It's ok, I've seen you defend a woman before.

-

[Shahrazad]

Laird,

I can't get over the irony of Dan being called a chauvinist. In the 70s, before somebody coined the phrase "male chauvinistic pig", the word chauvinism was used mainly as a synonym of jingoism, or one who had pride in their own nationality. And Dan hates jingoism!

I guess I'll be calling him a jingoist from now on. Unless he stops talking to me on account of that.

-

[Unidian]

By the way Dan, I've thought about your contention that "chauvinist" is a better fit than "misogynist" and I actually agree with you. The dictionary.com definition of chauvinism is "Prejudiced belief in the superiority of one's own gender, group, or kind". That's pretty much an exact fit. And since I'd have to extend the definition of misogyny to get it to fit, I don't see any reason to prefer it. So from now on, I won't refer to you as a misogynist, I'll refer to you as a chauvinist.

Yeah, that fits well. "Misogyny" always caused too much debate, anyway. I will also refer to it as chauvinism from now on.

[Dan Rowden]

I'd like it if you answered my questions and then I'll answer yours.

I'd like it if you fell of a tall building whilst impersonating a dead cat. You're the one making accusations here. I'm trying to get to the bottom of whether you understand what you're saying or not. I already said that disrespect is a particular psychological disposition that isn't necessarily inherent in actions or ideas and you keep tossing extreme analogies of actions at me. I need to know what you actually mean by "respect" before I can possibly continue the conversation.

[Dan Rowden]

By the way Dan, I've thought about your contention that "chauvinist" is a better fit than "misogynist" and I actually agree with you. The dictionary.com definition of chauvinism is "Prejudiced belief in the superiority of one's own gender, group, or kind". That's pretty much an exact fit. And since I'd have to extend the definition of misogyny to get it to fit, I don't see any reason to prefer it. So from now on, I won't refer to you as a misogynist, I'll refer to you as a chauvinist. Phew, I guess I get to keep my beard after all.

And the Lambrusco, sadly. But I'm glad you've seen my point. One of the disturbing things that happened in the course of feminist history was the transplanting of "misogynist" for "chuavanist" as a term to describe men's disposition. I always thought that development was utterly gratuitous.

[Shahrazad]

Dan,

Just for the record, what would you call a man who believes in the superiority of the white race? A chauvinist or a racist?

[Dan Rowden]

That would depend entirely on the nature of his arguments. If they were racist arguments I'd call him a racist, if they were valid I'd call him something else. I wouldn't feel a need to call him anything at all just on the basis that he was making certain arguments (unless they were transparently false and immediately refutable, such as, say, the arguments of a Creationist.)

[Unidian]

I am the missing link!

[Dan Rowden]

I know, I've seen the pictures.

[Laird]

Laird: I'd like it if you answered my questions and then I'll answer yours.

Dan: I'd like it if you fell of a tall building whilst impersonating a dead cat.

[in an evil tone] "Come heeeeeeeeere little kitty". 'Meooo....[clunk]'. [silence] [whistling-air sounds] THUMP!

Happy now?

You're the one making accusations here.

"The fundamental nature of all women is unconsciousness" is not much less of an accusation than "Dan Rowden takes a disrespectful position on women".

I'm trying to get to the bottom of whether you understand what you're saying or not.

And I'm perfectly happy for you to do that. I've already said that I'll answer you. But I asked you certain questions before you directed one at me, and you ignored my questions, which to me are the heart of the matter. I'm keen to avoid a situation whereby I respond to your question and you take up the argument at that post, thereby totally ignoring the questions that I've put to you, which to me are key.

I'm trying to show you where your contention that "it's not disrespectful if you believe that you're right" actually leads. Are you man enough to accept the consequences and state, publicly, that an utterly demeaning rape is "stupid but not disrespectful" simply because the rapist believes that he's right? Come on, Dan, I really want to know just how far you're willing to take this.

I already said that disrespect is a particular psychological disposition that isn't necessarily inherent in actions or ideas and you keep tossing extreme analogies of actions at me.

Those extreme actions are based on a view that I hypothetically hold to be true, just as you base your actions (actively promoting chauvinism on various forums including this one, maintaining a website containing chauvinist aphorisms) on views that you actually hold to be true.

I need to know what you actually mean by "respect" before I can possibly continue the conversation.

No, you need to work out whether what you mean by "respect" is consistent with brutal, merciless rape justified by "I believed it to be right".

[Unidian]

I know, I've seen the pictures.

Those were faked. An authentic one is available here.

[Dan Rowden]

No need to engage in Piltdowns, man.

[Unidian]

So, just out of curiosity, are you going to stop turbo-dodging by asking Laird to define common terms like "respect" and actually deal with his legitimate questions?

[Dan Rowden]

Laird: I'd like it if you answered my questions and then I'll answer yours.

Dan: I'd like it if you fell of a tall building whilst impersonating a dead cat.

[in an evil tone] "Come heeeeeeeeere little kitty". 'Meooo....[clunk]'. [silence] [whistling-air sounds] THUMP!

Happy now?

Marginally. I read somewhere a long time ago that a cat that falls out of a 12th story has more chance of survival than one falling from the 4th story - something about the higher cat hitting terminal velocity and therefore relaxing because it no longer experiences acceleration. I think that idea is highly suspect, but in the interests of scientific research and the spirit of Galileo, got any spare kittens?

You're the one making accusations here.

"The fundamental nature of all women is unconsciousness" is not much less of an accusation than "Dan Rowden takes a disrespectful position on women".

I'm talking about the content of this discussion. My views and arguments on this matter are extant and have been around for years. You made the accusation that my views are disrespectful. I'm trying to get to how you figure that. Asking me to explain my views is irrelevant to that.

I'm trying to get to the bottom of whether you understand what you're saying or not.

And I'm perfectly happy for you to do that. I've already said that I'll answer you. But I asked you certain questions before you directed one at me, and you ignored my questions, which to me are the heart of the matter. I'm keen to avoid a situation whereby I respond to your question and you take up the argument at that post, thereby totally ignoring the questions that I've put to you, which to me are key.

I can't answer your questions without knowing what you mean by "respect". I'll say it again for you: disrespect does not automatically inhere in actions or ideas. It must be intended and felt. If I say, "I mean no disrespect but I think you're an idiot." I am not being disrespectful.

I'm trying to show you where your contention that "it's not disrespectful if you believe that you're right" actually leads. Are you man enough to accept the consequences and state, publicly, that an utterly demeaning rape is "stupid but not disrespectful" simply because the rapist believes that he's right? Come on, Dan, I really want to know just how far you're willing to take this.

All the way, dude, all the way. Yes, I am totally willing to say his actions don't constitute disrespect, as such, if he believes them to be right. Like I said, disrespect must be intended and felt to be real. This is why I'm asking you what respect is. If you can't see that an action can be many things, all of them bad, without being actually disrespectful, then I can't help that.

I need to know what you actually mean by "respect" before I can possibly continue the conversation.

No, you need to work out whether what you mean by "respect" is consistent with brutal, merciless rape justified by "I believed it to be right".

No, I don't need to work it out at all because I do know what I mean by respect. I'm unconvinced that you do. And I'm not sure you're taking into account that respect (and/or disrespect) is a complicated matter. One may not respect a person for who they are, yet respect their rights and freedoms as a person. In my opinion what you need to do is show, explicitly, how my views are disrespectful. Good luck with that. All you've done so far is argue that if a person feels aggrieved or harmed by an action or idea then disrespect exists. That's utter baloney to me. It's denying people the content of their own minds. Are you saying my views can be disrespectful even where I feel and intend none? If so, I'm kind of fucked, don't you think? We may as well all just accuse each other of being disrespectful in our views and move on.

[Dan Rowden]

So, just out of curiosity, are you going to stop turbo-dodging by asking Laird to define common terms like "respect" and actually deal with his legitimate questions?

I did answer his questions, but apparently neither of you understand my point. And if I need to know what someone intends by a term, I am perfectly entitled to ask.

[Unidian]

Dan,

You made the accusation that my views are disrespectful. I'm trying to get to how you figure that.

I hate to do this, because I generally can't stand people who cut and paste the dictionary to make a point. It's such a cheap way to argue, and yet in this particular case...

respect

verb

1. To have a high opinion of: admire, consider, esteem, honor, regard, value. Idioms: look up to, thinkhighlymuchwellof. See praise/blame.

2. To recognize the worth, quality, importance, or magnitude of: appreciate, cherish, esteem, prize1, treasure, value. Idioms: set store by. See praise/blame.

noun

1. A feeling of deference, approval, and liking: account, admiration, appreciation, consideration, esteem, estimation, favor, honor, regard. See respect/contempt/standing.

2. A person's high standing among others: dignity, good name, good report, honor, prestige, reputation, repute, status. See respect/contempt/standing.

3. Friendly greetings. best, regard (used in plural). See greeting.

4. The particular angle from which something is considered: angle2, aspect, facet, frame of reference, hand, light1, phase, regard, side. See perspective.

I really don't think any further elaboration is required here, unless you intend to get really ludicrous. If "disrespect" is a lack of respect and/or the antithesis of it, then it's pretty clear how all of the above applies other than definitions 3 and 4 for the noun.

Is this avenue of debate going to be dropped now? I'd hope so.

[Dan Rowden]

The idea that if you don't "respect" something you necessarily "disrespect" it is bollocks. I hope that's not the point being made here. Almost all of those terms above don't correspond to how I actually feel about anything at all.

[Unidian]

<sighs>

Okay, I was afraid I'd have to do this.

dis·re·spect (dĭs'rĭ-spĕkt') pronunciation
n.

Lack of respect, esteem, or courteous regard.
tr.v., -spect·ed, -spect·ing, -spects.

To show a lack of respect for: disrespected her elders; disrespected the law.

Disrespect = lack of respect.

Is the dictionary now going to be wrong, or too limited for application in a philosophical context, or oriented toward culturally-biased definitions, or some other dodge?

Come on, Dan. I don't see why this is even a question or a big deal. Of course it's disrespectful to suggest that women lack consciousness, a soul, the capacity for spiritual growth, sympathy, compassion, etc. And if you haven't said such things verbatim, then Sue, David, and others here have and you know it - and you also know you're explicitly supported them in doing so. So yeah, your views about women are disrespectful. There's precisely diddly-squat possibility they could be reasonably interpreted as anything but. Why not just "own it?" I don't see why respecting women would be important anyway, given the views you have expressed and/or affirmed.

Attempting to put you guys' disrespect for women in question is pure PR work for the sake of the audience, and frankly I'm surprised you'd be worried about it.