GENIUS FORUMS

A recent article in "The Sydney Morning Herald" references something I wrote in the Wikipedia article on "Misogyny"

The part about how the term "misogynist" is "used in a looser sense as a term of derision to describe anyone who holds an unpopular or distasteful view about women as a group" was written by myself.

I find the whole subject hilarious.

Strictly speaking, misogyny is supposed to be "hatred of women". But is there anyone who hates literally all women?

I reckon either there are no misogynists at all, or everyone is a misogynist, since everyone hates everything to some degree.

And look at this from the Wikipedia's misogyny article:

The World Health Organisation's Multi-country Study on Women's Health and Domestic Violence Against Women is a landmark study, both in its scope and in how it was carried out. The report shows that violence against women is widespread with far-reaching health consequences.

I would think that domestic violence is the result of loving a woman. If you hated her then why would you be living with her? That part of the article is totally out of place.

Here's a video of the author of that article.

Matt Gregory wrote:That part of the article is totally out of place.

I think it's fair to say that "misogyny" is a meaningless term. It is simply a crude term of abuse, like calling someone a "jerk" or suchlike.

Kevin Solway wrote:I think it's fair to say that "misogyny" is a meaningless term. It is simply a crude term of abuse, like calling someone a "jerk" or suchlike.

It's not meaningless - it describes a particular type of jerk. :)

My new favourite swear word is "misanthrope!"

The section in Wikipeda on 'Misandry' is worth a look, in particular i noticed the comments by feminists in feminist literature, though it could all generally do with a lot more work.

One of the Misandry feminist quotes was this one.

"Men's need to dominate women may be based in their own sense of marginality or emptiness

Unlike the other quotes, I think this one is somewhat true, though few would read it the way I do.

Marginality equates to individualism
Emptiness equates to the masculine desire to fill emptiness and to the masculine affinity to it.

"Men's need to dominate women may be based in their own sense of marginality or emptiness

I don't see how that quote is an example of hatred of men.

The writings on misandry are just as stupid as those on misogyny.

Or perhaps it is meant to be a parody of the misogyny entry.

Solway wrote:

I think it's fair to say that "misogyny" is a meaningless term. It is simply a crude term of abuse, like calling someone a "jerk" or suchlike.

What is funny about people is that they’ll ignorantly grow to hate their partner because of the attachment and the conflict between their wills etc, but they all secretly hope that there is another companion out there somewhere that they wont grow to hate and be digested with. And of course they begin their next relationship with the same ignorance as the first. And we all know how the story ends.

Like many dictionary definitions, the term misogyny is incomplete because there is no understanding behind the definition.

The term misogyny was probably coined by some drunk professor at a bar complaining about how much he hated his wife – that is before he went home with some other women that hated her husband….

And their courtship ritual probably consisted of the two of them venting to each other about how much they hated their partners.

what a bunch of jerks!

Kevin Solway wrote:

"Men's need to dominate women may be based in their own sense of marginality or emptiness

I don't see how that quote is an example of hatred of men.

Nobody likes to be dominated. Most people don't mind being led as long as the leader is competant, but that is different from being dominated.

Elizabeth wrote:

Nobody likes to be dominated.

And yet men, women and children, from the very young to the very old, every moment of every day are either being submissive or domineering, depending on the circumstances. Submission itself is an indirect form of domination which women and children use most effectively. Domination is used mostly by men in a direct manner - which is why men cop a lot of the flak and women don’t. But of course, both domination and submission need each other to operate.

So, people do really like to be dominated 24/7 – for even the dominator is being controlled by the person who submits to them. Love and hate are just accessories in this ego driven quest for happiness, and not the motivating force.

-
Sue

Sue wrote:

So, people do really like to be dominated 24/7 – for even the dominator is being controlled by the person who submits to them. Love and hate are just accessories in this ego driven quest for happiness, and not the motivating force.

I agree that submission is just an indirect way of trying exactly what the more direct dominator tries: They both try to establish a sense of control and security.

It is complicity. Cooperation between criminals.


However Sue, you say Love and hate are just accessories in the ego driven quest for happiness, not the motivating force.

But what is the motivating force? Ego? But what is ego?

Sue wrote:

yet men, women and children, from the very young to the very old, every moment of every day are either being submissive or domineering

Under my definitions of submissive and domineering, that is not so. What are your definitions of submissive and domineering?

Children must be dominated at times, sometimes for the good of the child and other times as payment to the adult for the job of raising a child. Unfortunately, that tends to become the first dynamic that people learn,

There is a difference between being dominated and led. Being dominated involves being forced against one’s will.

Unless one reduces being “submissive or domineering” to “being passive or being active” there are many moments, especially in solitude, where one neither being submissive or domineering, but simply “being.”

Elizabeth wrote:

Sue: yet men, women and children, from the very young to the very old, every moment of every day are either being submissive or domineering

Under my definitions of submissive and domineering, that is not so. What are your definitions of submissive and domineering?

Submissive = willing
Dominate = to will

There is a difference between being dominated and led. Being dominated involves being forced against one’s will.

No one can force you to do anything against your own will. You ‘will’ your own submission, because to do so allows you to continue to be in control of the situation. For example: when placed in vulnerable situations women and children will cry, whereas men will often try and do something to change the situation. All of them are willing the situation away by acting willfully

Unless one reduces being “submissive or domineering” to “being passive or being active” there are many moments, especially in solitude, where one neither being submissive or domineering, but simply “being.”

Boredom, tiredness and loneliness - just a few things that make us feel uncomfortable when we are alone. We either give in to them by becoming grumpy, sleepy, and self piteous; or we try and push them away by reading a book, drinking coffee, and telephoning a friend. Even to get up in the morning you have to dominate your desire to stay asleep in your warm and comfortable bed. Thinking about life and death requires an act of will, especially since most people are more than willing to just go along with the herd on these issues. There is not one moment of your day when your ego isn’t submitting to, or battling against a situation so as to glean from it the best possible outcome. This ‘ego at play’, is what constitutes a person's whole life – but obviously that doesn’t seem to bother many people, since hardly anyone ever tries to put an end to that play.

-
Sue

Cory wrote:

However Sue, you say Love and hate are just accessories in the ego driven quest for happiness, not the motivating force.

But what is ego?

You’ve surely heard of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal*? Well, the ego is just like this beast in that it will eat anything and everything. Though it is said by some that the ego and the beast are impossible to slay, a few people have discovered that if you wrap a towel around your head, these two creatures are so mind-bogglingly stupid that they assume that if you can't see them, then they can't see you. I’ve not tried it on the Bugblatter, but it does seem to have some effect on the ego – as long as you first soak your towel in soluble reason. ;)

But what is the motivating force?

“Make the best of every situation” – that’s the ego’s motto. It desires happiness. It will squeeze happiness out of any situation it encounters – even if that situation looks potentially painful and gruesome. Because of its ability to be so ‘up’ all the time, you have to cleverly use this to bring about its downfall by directing its desirous nature towards a lethal form of happiness – Truth.

-
Sue
* The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:No one can force you to do anything against your own will.

There are many aspects of Reality that you do not understand. I do not imagine that your life has been easy, but for you to have reached that conclusion, you have been protected from some of the harsher realities.

I don't think Sue is including those situations where "will" isn't really relevant (i.e. where choice doesn't exist in any fashion) - e.g. physical absue, rape etc....

In all other circumstances we do will our responses.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Boredom, tiredness and loneliness - just a few things that make us feel uncomfortable when we are alone.

Tiredness happens 6-9 hours per 24 hours for most people whether they are alone or with a large group. Lonliness happens for me maybe once a week. I do not recall exactly when I was last bored. Perhaps it was in my early teens. Being alone is not always an uncomfortable thing. Much of the time there is no feeling to it.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Even to get up in the morning you have to dominate your desire to stay asleep in your warm and comfortable bed. Thinking about life and death requires an act of will

For some of us, sometimes not thinking about life and death is an act of will. We can be active or passive with our own will, and for many people, our most frequent oppressor is our selves. It is possible to be both dominated by our selves and submissive to our selves at the same time, but life does not have to be an internal battle. If you eat healthy foods, avoid caffine and other things that are bad for you, get the right amount of exercise and nutrition, go to be early enough, maintain a regular routine, and have enough happiness in your soul to look forward to the day, getting up in the morning is not a problem.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:“Make the best of every situation” – that’s the ego’s motto. It desires happiness. It will squeeze happiness out of any situation it encounters – even if that situation looks potentially painful and gruesome. Because of its ability to be so ‘up’ all the time, you have to cleverly use this to bring about its downfall

So what of those in the depths of despair? Those who have been tearful daily for months, and who have thought about life and death (more often death than life) automatically, with no effort of the will, for at least as long? I do not believe that is any indication of overcoming the ego.

I question whether choice exists in any fashion. It seems to me like you are either lucky or you arent.

The phenomenon of responsibility, to me, seems to arise when the conditions are ripe

So what of those in the depths of despair? Those who have been tearful daily for months, and who have thought about life and death (more often death than life) automatically, with no effort of the will, for at least as long? I do not believe that is any indication of overcoming the ego.

This actually might be the consquence of hedonism though. Great pleasures bring great miseries. The way up and the way down are one and the same.

People often say that full blown depression comes for no reason. In my experience, misery is the concomitant of happiness.

Or as lau tzu says: happiness is rooted in misery.

Elizabeth wrote:

Sue: No one can force you to do anything against your own will.

There are many aspects of Reality that you do not understand. I do not imagine that your life has been easy, but for you to have reached that conclusion, you have been protected from some of the harsher realities.

Even if you are raped, run over by a bus, tortured by telemarketers, or bombed by pygmy alien terrorists, your ego will find a way to take charge of the situation. Crying “victim”, bursting into tears, screaming back abuse, fighting back with all your might, seeking revenge – are just some of the ways the ego wins.

Dan wrote:

I don't think Sue is including those situations where "will" isn't really relevant (i.e. where choice doesn't exist in any fashion) - e.g. physical absue, rape etc....

The circumstances that bring about rape and other forms of emotional or physical abused could arise at any moment for anyone. When they do arise, we can only deal with them the best we can. Seeing oneself as a victim, or crying a flood of tears, or wanting an abusive father to rot in jail, or never being able to trust another person again, are all ways we lord over these types of situations.

Dan: In all other circumstances we do will our responses.

Most submitting and dominating are done without anyone knowing what is going on. There are times when it is clear that you're choosing one or the other, but that’s not very often. Most people are swept along in an emotional haze, not knowing what’s really happening to them or what they are doing to others. The fact that most people are completely in the dark about their actions means that these terms are really only useful as tools to those people who are studying the ego in an effort to undermine it.

And the only way to stop exercising the ego is to awaken one’s mind to the truth of all things – such as seeing that you, the rapist, and the knife being held at your throat are all Reality, and that the causes that bought about this situation were set in motion before you were even born. And that after the event, when you are bloodied and beaten; the rapist thrown further into confusion and despair; and the knife left to rust at the bottom of the river – that to wish revenge or that it never had happened is to turn one’s mind and heart away from Reality, and plunge oneself further into hell.

-
Sue

Sue wrote:

And the only way to stop exercising the ego is to awaken one’s mind to the truth of all things – such as seeing that you, the rapist, and the knife being held at your throat are all Reality, and that the causes that bought about this situation were set in motion before you were even born. And that after the event, when you are bloodied and beaten

That still sounds like "against one's will" to me, unless one wanted to be raped or whatever. Screaming or crying out in pain may happen however Reality is regarded at the time. That is not an act of the ego; it is a physiologic response. If anything, screaming or crying out may indicate less activity of the ego at the time. When I have been injured in situations where I believed I could do something about it, I did not scream or cry out. At one point I had to be informed that i was bleeding as the rivulet was running down the back of my arm and I did not notice. During the more painful occassion that I pmd you about, I did scream and cry, and after recognizing the reality was that he actually wanted to keep hurting me and my body was too damaged to do anything about it, the tears were still there and I still cried out with each sharp pain that was worse than I could tolerate. That did not equate to submitting.