Making peace with femininity

[Unidian]

Dan,

I presume that in a year or so when the lad has no need of parental guidance (which is probably largely the case now) you fully expect Sue will shut up about this stuff?

Absolutely not. I guess I should have specified that I was speculating as to what Sue's original motives in adopting anti-feminist views identical to David's might have been.

Her current motives are likely those of anyone who has maintained a certain position through thick and thin for a long time - meaning that by now, she probably actually believes all of it. So no, I would not expect her to shut up about all this anytime soon. My point was aimed at talking about a possible reason someone might adopt such views to begin with - one that makes a good deal of sense to me and apparently to others here.

[Shahrazad]

Dan,

I'm not sure what you mean.

Have you ever known or heard of a woman who became a misogynist because of her experience with other women?

If I was a man hater, and my husband started acting like a man hater, would you think he got it from me or that I got it from him? What man in his right mind would hate men?

I'd say chances are he became a man hater to score some points with me.

-

[Unidian]

I hate everybody!

Why, you ask?

Because I love everybody!

That makes perfect sense, if you know how.

Or, alternatively, it's just a pseudo-profound paradoxical proclamation. You make the call. :)

[Dan Rowden]

Dan,

I presume that in a year or so when the lad has no need of parental guidance (which is probably largely the case now) you fully expect Sue will shut up about this stuff?

Absolutely not. I guess I should have specified that I was speculating as to what Sue's original motives in adopting anti-feminist views identical to David's might have been.

Her views are "identical" to David's because they're correct. It's a funny thing but people who hold correct views tend to hold the same ones. It's a cosmic mystery :)

Her current motives are likely those of anyone who has maintained a certain position through thick and thin for a long time - meaning that by now, she probably actually believes all of it. So no, I would not expect her to shut up about all this anytime soon. My point was aimed at talking about a possible reason someone might adopt such views to begin with - one that makes a good deal of sense to me and apparently to others here.

I admit it's not an entirely uninteresting speculation, even if wrong, but in saying that I'll note that it doesn't constitute an argument against Sue's views. If she feels inclined she may wish to elucidate the question of the chronology of her perspective development. Then again, she may wish to just flip you the bird.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan,

I'm not sure what you mean.

Have you ever known or heard of a woman who became a misogynist because of her experience with other women?

Sue is not a misogynist. Do you think I am? Because if she is one then so am I. And the reason most women don't adopt such views is because they are blind to reality, like most people. But there's an inherent problem with what you're expressing here, which is actually a tad misogynistic - that being that no woman who adopts such ideas will be regarded as having had the capacity to do so of her own volition. She must have passively got it from men. Simone de Bouvier's views about women came entirely out of the influence of her French existentialist mates! She couldn't possibly have come up with that herself! When Florence Nightingale said: "Women have no sympathy and my experience of women is almost as large as Europe." she must have heard that from a man! See my point?

If I was a man hater, and my husband started acting like a man hater, would you think he got it from me or that I got it from him? What man in his right mind would hate men?

An intelligent one?

I'd say chances are he became a man hater to score some points with me.

Maybe, but where's the acknowledgment of the ability of some people to think for themselves?

[Unidian]

Dan,

Her views are "identical" to David's because they're correct. It's a funny thing but people who hold correct views tend to hold the same ones.

So, you're affirming that the ultra-extreme anti-feminist views of David and Sue are "correct?"

Disappointing. Although I wouldn't expect it to be acknowledged, I'll remain privately hopeful that such a proclamation is simply for the benefit of the audience.

Sue is not a misogynist. Do you think I am? Because if she is one then so am I.

Well, from the perspective of the dictionary and pretty much the overwhelming bulk of the world, I'd have to say yes. However, given that I'm never one to go along with the overwhelming bulk of the world just for the hell of it, I'd say that I'm personally not sure. It's a complex issue, to be certain. For now, "ultra-extreme anti-feminist" will suffice.

[Ataraxia]

Then again, she may wish to just flip you the bird.

If i were in Sue's position that's the route I'd take.To borrow from Disraeli "Never complain,Never explain"

Only being a recent frequenter of this forum I have no knowledge of her history(and neither care) but have found her posts some of the most lucid and thought provoking of all.

[Shahrazad]

Dan,

Sue is not a misogynist. Do you think I am? Because if she is one then so am I.

I don't think so. Would you even talk to women if you hated them? What would be your motive?

Do you agree with all of Sue's views on women, as expressed in this forum? It doesn't get much more misogynist than that.

And the reason most women don't adopt such views is because they are blind to reality, like most people. But there's an inherent problem with what you're expressing here, which is actually a tad misogynistic - that being that no woman who adopts such ideas will be regarded as having had the capacity to do so of her own volition. She must have passively got it from men.

That is not at all what I had in mind. What I had in mind is that people who spout hatred against a whole group of people usually do so unfairly, emotionally, and against a group they are not a member of. For example, I'd have a lot of pity for a member of the black race who thought the black race was subhuman, or a Jew who did the same. In my view, not many things are worse than self-hatred. But I'm open to changing my mind.

-

[Dan Rowden]

Dan,

Her views are "identical" to David's because they're correct. It's a funny thing but people who hold correct views tend to hold the same ones.

So, you're affirming that the ultra-extreme anti-feminist views of David and Sue are "correct?"

"Ultra-extreme"? Nice use of hyperbole. Yes, I am most assuredly affirming that their views are correct. That doesn't mean I always agree with their use of rhetorical devices.

Disappointing.

Jesus, man, how many time do I have to affirm it before it's accepted? You know what they about doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome, right? :)

Although I wouldn't expect it to be acknowledged, I'll remain privately hopeful that such a proclamation is simply for the benefit of the audience.

Hope springs eternal, as they say. I think they also say something less charitable about hope but I can't bring it to mind just now....

Sue is not a misogynist. Do you think I am? Because if she is one then so am I.

Well, from the perspective of the dictionary and pretty much the overwhelming bulk of the world, I'd have to say yes.

Two "authorities" with which you know I have little empathy.

However, given that I'm never one to go along with the overwhelming bulk of the world just for the hell of it, I'd say that I'm personally not sure. It's a complex issue, to be certain. For now, "ultra-extreme anti-feminist" will suffice.

Dunno, that's sound more like an advertiser's by-line for an SUV.

[Laird]

Dan: Sue is not a misogynist. Do you think I am? Because if she is one then so am I.

Unidian: Well, from the perspective of the dictionary [...] I'd have to say yes.

I'd have to disagree. I think that strictly speaking, neither Sue nor Dan conform to the dictionary definition of a misogynist, that being: "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women" or "One who hates women" (both of those are from dictionary.com). I don't detect explicit hatred in the sense of bile in either of Dan or Sue's attitudes. Dan maintains workable, caring relationships with women. I imagine that Sue does the same. The only sense in which they could be said to conform to this definition is perhaps according to the word "mistrust". Still, there were a few definitions on that page and only one that used the word "mistrust". The rest of them used either "hatred" or "dislike".

On the other hand, they certainly disrespect and disparage women (not so much as individuals, more so as types), and it's not too much of a stretch to make the claim that these are in some sense attitudes akin to hatred, or at least inciting of it, and anyway, I really can't think of a word that fits better - I don't think that it's too much of a stretch to extend the definition of "misogynist" to include extreme disrespect and disparagement, particularly when it's held that a woman's fundamental nature is practically irredeemable.

[Dan Rowden]

Then again, she may wish to just flip you the bird.

If i were in Sue's position that's the route I'd take.To borrow from Disraeli "Never complain,Never explain"

Well, see, she's on a hiding to nothing, as anyone would be trying to address such a line of thought. That's why I have a problem with it - it sets my Libran sense of justice alarm off. If she addresses it people can just decide that she's in denial. There's really no getting around this kind of thing, which is why I think it achieves little.

[Unidian]

"Ultra-extreme"? Nice use of hyperbole.

I don't find it hyperbolic. It's difficult to imagine views more profoundly anti-feminist in nature than Sue's, with which you are affirming agreement. Where's the hyperbole? If those views are not "ultra-extreme anti-feminist," can you show me ones that are?

[Dan Rowden]

I don't think that it's too much of a stretch to extend the definition of "misogynist" to include extreme disrespect and disparagement, particularly when it's held that a woman's fundamental nature is practically irredeemable.

Ah, convenient, let's extend the definition of misogynist so we can lump the nasty QSR in there! What is "extreme disrespect" anyway? Is telling the truth as you see it extremely disrespectful? Should we lie, as philosophers, LIE about things out of respect for some group or thing? What the hell are you actually advocating?

[Philosophaster]

I have made peace with my feminine nature.

[Unidian]

Ah, convenient, let's extend the definition of misogynist so we can lump the nasty QSR in there!

That's why I'm unwilling to specifically call it "misogny" per se. But I don't think it needs to be that in order to be profoundly objectionable. Statements are routinely made on this website to the effect that women lack consciousness, lack a soul, lack the ability to think truly substantial thoughts, lack the potential for spiritual growth, etc. While those statements may not be "misogynistic" in the strict sense of "hate," they are certainly deeply troubling to those of us who value and respect women as fully-qualified members of the human race.

And, ffs, it's "QRS." QRS!!! :p

[Dan Rowden]

"Ultra-extreme"? Nice use of hyperbole.

I don't find it hyperbolic. It's difficult to imagine views more profoundly anti-feminist in nature than Sue's, with which you are affirming agreement. Where's the hyperbole? If those views are not "ultra-extreme anti-feminist," can you show me ones that are?

How extreme is "ultra" on the extremometer? Is that as high as that thing goes? Is "mega-extreme" below it? What about unsurpassably-extreme? Basically I think when one uses "ultra" and "extreme" together one is indulging in what amounts to hyperbole. As for views that are more anti-feminist than Sue's or mine, how about those of the Taliban or any others where rights and liberties are not afforded to women?

[Dan Rowden]

I have made peace with my feminine nature.

Go the office and collect your gold star. Watch out for the nurse, she's a bitch.

[Unidian]

Dan,

How extreme is "ultra" on the extremometer? Is that as high as that thing goes? Is "mega-extreme" below it? What about unsurpassably-extreme?

It's pretty freaking extreme. Approximately. Within a 5% margin of error.

Basically I think when one uses "ultra" and "extreme" together one is indulging in what amounts to hyperbole.

Again, I disagree. The views expressed ARE ultra-extreme. I've never seen views that exceed them in terms of extremeness. I'm skeptical that it's even possible for views to be any more extreme. You guys are completely and totally rejecting feminism in its entirety and holding it in complete contempt. That's pretty extreme.

Why not just "own it," so to speak? Since when is "extremeness" a problem for you guys? I'm actually kind of surprised you're shying away from the label. If they were my views, I'd simply concede that they are extreme. My views about work, for example, are quite radical.

As for views that are more anti-feminist than Sue's or mine, how about those of the Taliban or any others where rights and liberties are not afforded to women?

I don't know. Do Taliban views hold that women lack consciousness and/or a soul? Do they hold that women are incapable of spiritual growth? Do they hold that women have no contribution to the the intellectual sphere to make unless they become men psychologically?

[Shahrazad]

If those views are not "ultra-extreme anti-feminist," can you show me ones that are?

Umm, Laird's views. He is chivalrous. He defends women because he thinks they are so dumb and weak, they can't defend themselves.

-

[Unidian]

Are you quite sure that's why he defends them?

[Laird]

Laird: I don't think that it's too much of a stretch to extend the definition of "misogynist" to include extreme disrespect and disparagement, particularly when it's held that a woman's fundamental nature is practically irredeemable.

Dan: Ah, convenient, let's extend the definition of misogynist so we can lump the nasty QSR in there!

As I wrote, I can't think of a word that fits better, and it doesn't make sense to me to invent a new one when this one is not very far off already.

What is "extreme disrespect" anyway?

It's extreme in the sense that you hold that it's practically impossible for a woman to earn your respect.

Is telling the truth as you see it extremely disrespectful? Should we lie, as philosophers, LIE about things out of respect for some group or thing?

OK, that's a fair enough call. From your perspective you're just being honest. Thing is, you have enough sane, intelligent people pointing out in no uncertain terms the flaws of your approach, yet you refuse to see sense. Of course, you're simply going to respond to me that you don't particularly care about other people's opinions, that yours is the only one that counts, and furthermore you're probably going to claim that it's arrogance on my part to presume that my way is "seeing sense" whereas yours is flawed. I can't really argue with you there, all that I can do is to encourage you to consider that many, many people who actually like you as a person, really wish that you'd reconsider your philosophical approach towards women - that it just doesn't match with reality and that it detracts from your character.

What the hell are you actually advocating?

That you wise up to what the truth about women actually is.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan,

Sue is not a misogynist. Do you think I am? Because if she is one then so am I.

I don't think so. Would you even talk to women if you hated them? What would be your motive?

Possibly to be abusive. Other than that I'm not sure.

Do you agree with all of Sue's views on women, as expressed in this forum? It doesn't get much more misogynist than that.

What makes it misogynistic and how are you actually defining misogyny? You may the find the opinions false and misguided, but calling them hateful is another thing entirely.

And the reason most women don't adopt such views is because they are blind to reality, like most people. But there's an inherent problem with what you're expressing here, which is actually a tad misogynistic - that being that no woman who adopts such ideas will be regarded as having had the capacity to do so of her own volition. She must have passively got it from men.

That is not at all what I had in mind. What I had in mind is that people who spout hatred against a whole group of people usually do so unfairly, emotionally, and against a group they are not a member of. For example, I'd have a lot of pity for a member of the black race who thought the black race was subhuman, or a Jew who did the same. In my view, not many things are worse than self-hatred. But I'm open to changing my mind.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Basically you're saying that if a member of a certain social group is critical of that group they can't be taken seriously. That seems neither logical or just. Isn't the content of their arguments the only thing that really matters? And don't you think it's a bit dodgy to essentially demand that any person identify so heavily with their social group that they would never criticise it? How can anyone get critcised if those outside the group get called racist and those inside get called traitors?

[Shahrazad]

Are you quite sure that's why he defends them?

David Quinn said so himself. That men like Laird are the real misogynists.

[Laird]

Jeez I'm pretty glad to see that last post Sher. For a while there I was intending to post something along the lines of "I guess you don't know me that well after all, Sher". Straight over this lad's head...

[Dan Rowden]

What the hell are you actually advocating?

That you wise up to what the truth about women actually is.

Oh, you know what women/woman actually is? Please, do tell!!