History of Feminism
Related: About this forumWe need to talk about misogyny
From Kim Moore's tumblr (SoulRevision)
"...
About a month ago, after seeing some of Elliot’s YouTube videos, his family contacted authorities. Law Enforcement interviewed Elliot and said they found him to be a ‘perfectly polite, kind and wonderful human’ and took no further action.
Now we have media outlets labeling Elliot as a “mad man”, “spoiled brat”, “misunderstood”, “good human” etc and continuing to file this mass murder under mental health.
Understand that no one is saying that he did not suffer from mental illness, I’m sure he does. But we CANNOT ignore the fact that this mass killing was rooted in his hate of women (misogyny) and inability to properly deal with rejection. There is much to unpack about this incident, how it was handled and how it will be portrayed in the media, but for now I’ll post some tweets from those of us responding to the shooting on twitter.
..."
emphasis mine
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
shenmue
(38,538 posts)
Truth.
sheshe2
(88,302 posts)
BainsBane
(54,982 posts)was evidence I hated men. That was in an SOP alert here and a subject of discussion on Discussionist.
Then I got the following PMs from a male member of this site.
You need to work more at lifting women up and less at tearing women down. Your kind of feminism actually hurts women more than helps. You are to feminism what Ted Cruz is to republicans. Your extremism does more harm than good.
That's what I thought. You're not a real feminist because your actions hurt women. I'm a real feminist because I support issues that help women -- issues such as a woman's right to choose, equal pay for equal work, and myriad other legitimate issues. What I don't do is spew manhate from the top of my lungs in order to try to advance women. That's counter productive.
I have to wonder if you're some sort of mysoginist in sheep's clothing, damaging our movement from the inside.
What do you call that? I don't call it feminist.
redqueen
(115,173 posts)Men who not only claim to be feminists, but then go on to presume to boss other feminists around, and call them "babe" while doing it...
That person ought to be PPRd. That is some seriously fucked up shit.
BainsBane
(54,982 posts)continual references to my being "crazy," "delusional," and "mentally ill."
redqueen
(115,173 posts)If only such obvious bullshit was obvious to jurors / admins here.
This place would have a lot less of a certain type of talking points here, that's for sure. Much less derailing of certain topics / disruption of certain types of discussions, as well.
BainsBane
(54,982 posts)Except for my audacity in posting the Daily Kos article.
redqueen
(115,173 posts)Seriously don't know how people can take this place in large doses.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)The term "man-hating" should always serve as a red flag.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the boys over, in pms....
BainsBane
(54,982 posts)
ismnotwasm
(42,482 posts)The one who has apparently been sending various members PMs? I mean I even got one-- total waste of time because I don't been know who the motherfucker is.
Fringe radical my ass. I have seen you patiently explain Feminism 101. I love that mansplaining, there--gets to decide who's a feminist, because, well he knows best. Just like that father show from the '50's
gollygee
(22,336 posts)And I can guess who wrote it.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)That's a rarity.
redqueen
(115,173 posts)Elsewhere around the net, they don't seem to be so rare.
Or maybe it's that the men around here who get it just mostly keep their mouths shut, so as not to offend the massive amounts of sock puppets/trolls/other supporters of the patriarchy/closet misgynists.
Either way, yeah, this place is tough to stomach.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)I'm too tired to even say anything--way past my bedtime
...you nailed it, as always, redqueen.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Though it does get tiring repeating oneself to the legion of sock puppets and intentionally-dense morons that our admins tolerate, just so long as the bigots don't target whatever groups hte admin might belong to.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)It's not so much that I'm keeping quiet, but that I don't see their bullshit.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Every time one of these tragedies happens, there's always the reflexive attempt by culture warriors to tie the insane nutball to some group they hate, trying to tar them all with the same brush.
Already this clown is being called "a classic example of Limousine Liberal child rearing" by nutcases on the other side, for instance.
But it always peters out because nobody ever manages to tie this to an actual policy that could have prevented the tragedy from happening.
So, aside from the tweets inviting everyone to feel really really sanctimonious about not hating women, and using the word "misogony" a lot, what exactly are you suggesting the nation do in terms of policy, and how exactly would that have changed the outcome of this tragedy?
Please don't tell me sensitivity training would have changed the behavior of a mass murderer. That's almost as stupid as the NRA arming everyone to the teeth.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
redqueen
(115,173 posts)"tweets inviting everyone to feel really really sanctimonious about not hating women, and using the word "misogony" a lot"
Yeah.
You don't belong in this group.
BainsBane
(54,982 posts)He just insisted MRAs weren't hate groups.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)I said that your quote from the Southern Poverty Law Center didn't say what you said it did.
Just as you are twisting what I'm saying here.
I'm detecting a pattern.
I haven't taken a position on whether MRA groups are "hate groups" or not. But you, at least, aren't going to be convincing me. Not with your behavior.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
BainsBane
(54,982 posts)not because you don't believe they aren't hate groups? Really? I find it very strange to care so much about a preposition that one would bother to post. I assumed the subject mattered to you in some way. That is not, I think, an unreasonable assumption.
"My behavior"? I'm not a child for you to chastise. If you want to clarify your position, do so, but I am not even remotely interested in your lectures, particularly given the fact you have invaded a safe haven group first to minimize concerns about misogyny and now to deny what is a reasonable understanding of your post in the GD thread I referenced.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)I detest arguments that overreach, and people who decry facts.
You're not the latter, bu the way. You actually get kudos from me for posting your "Mass Shooter influenced by the 'Mens Rights Group'" in GD because it was filled with actual links to actual articles. Something like what ProSense does; she is my favorite poster on D.U. hands down. However, when you got into that argument with Upton, it was clear that you were overclaiming about the SPLC's views over that specific point, which is why I entered the discussion then. I'm not big into the misogyny/misandrany(sp? - is that even a word?) sniping. I have both a son and daughter, and don't blame half the population for any of out problems.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
BainsBane
(54,982 posts)They have to do with women's lives. Misogyny results in violence: rape, battery, and killing of women. That is far from trivial.
The whole misandry thing is self-entitled men who are pissed off they have to compete against women for jobs, that they don't get everything handed to them by virtue of being male. There is no more equivalency between the two than there is between Civil Rights activists and White Supremacists. Objective facts do indeed matter, and they demonstrate clearly that women face discrimination in society. No one should have to prove something so basic to any liberal.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)He is just trying to bait you. You are smarter than that. This moron isn't worth arguing with. I really respect you, which is why I don't even think you should be engaging this idiot.
ismnotwasm
(42,482 posts)By the way whose reality? Mine? You don't know me. A women? You're not one. A black man? A Native American women? A 1st generation immigrant? A 2nd-- perhaps Latino, or pan-Asian?
Whose 'reality' do you represent?
Why your own of course.
I'm guessing white male. I could be wrong of course
Claiming to be part of "the reality based community" Is disingenuous and presumptive.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)The phrase "Reality Based Community" came in response to Karl Rove claiming that the Bush administration would make its own reality in Iraq.
But you're right. I don't know you, so maybe you actually do agree with Rove that reality changed to conform to Bush's will on the Iraq war. And if that is the case, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
p.s. I will say that I detest magical thinking from all perspectives, not just Rove's
ismnotwasm
(42,482 posts)What are you talking about now? "Magical thinking" you all over the place.
The fact is a google-wiki- based definition has nothing to do with what I asked.
And you hurt my feelings.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
ahhhhh
better?
ismnotwasm
(42,482 posts)
I thought I might have the vapors and need smelling salts to arise and get me over my melancholy
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)ismnotwasm
(42,482 posts)
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"I detest arguments that overreach..."
Whilst yet others may detest insincere posts masquerading as righteous dialectic. 
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)so many women are victimized by men, I'd say that indicates problems with socialization.
I can always be sure I'll see guys speaking up to minimize violence against women. I don't see a parallel influx of rationalizers regarding violence against other groups.
Maybe taking hate speech against women as seriously as hate speech against other out-groups is taken--before it gets acted out...maybe that would be a start.
oh dammit, I'm wiped...too tired to say anymore.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Maybe if more people sending these graphic and terrifying rape/murder threats to women were to face criminal charges, some of them would think twice before doing so.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I am quite exhausted as well. Not sure what to do.
The Traveler
(5,632 posts)as it really has been for these last several years, it is specious to claim that there is no relationship between policy, the conduct of politics, and outcomes of this sort.
You have US congresscritters and senators and pundits spewing highly similar feces from their mouths on a daily basis. Shall review the "slut shaming" of Sandra Fluke? How about the "Abortion Barbie" narrative aimed at Wendy Davis? Do I need to go on? Because if you wish, I could ... for megabytes and more.
The world is full of nut cases. They will always be able, if sufficiently determined, to act out on their fantasies. We can make it harder (and should) by establishing better controls over ownership of weapons and ammunition. (I am a recent convert to gun controls ... I was pretty much a 2nd Amendment advocate. But the mass shootings and the spectacle of assholes roaming restaurants with assault rifles has pretty much disabused me of that conviction. This crap has gotten out of hand, and something really must be done. But I digress.)
And that, I think, is what my friend RQ is trying to get at. When civic leaders are able to express so blatantly their need to dominate, exploit, repress, and devalue women (and a great number of them are so able), then the nutcase can be assured his feelings on the matter are not so extreme. And that assurance can then be the basis for justifying acts.
So I think you missed her entire point, and in a tangential way, by doing so actually further established it.
Trav
BainsBane
(54,982 posts)Who said that if women can have abortions men should be able to rape. You can't make this shit up.
The Traveler
(5,632 posts)And it is the kind of comment that decent people will universally condemn. Suffice to say the media has not shed consistent light, or heat, on this sort of thing.
Trav
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)I support both Sandra Fluke and Wendy Davis. I agree the attacks against them are largely motivated by misogyny.
My question is more about why anyone thinks this will affect the behavior of a mass murderer. It seems to me mass murderers always find a way to come up with some excuse. This one in particular was raised in a Democratic household that didn't seem likely to particularly care what some GOP neanderthal thought, other than to hold it out as an example of what you shouldn't do. So even if one were able to put a muzzle on the women-haters in the GOP (which, frankly, I don't want to do because I want people to see these people for what they really are), I still don't think it would have changed the outcome of this tragedy one whit.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
ismnotwasm
(42,482 posts)ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Of both men, women and themselves. Psychopathy is bad enough, but when mixed with testosterone, it's deadly.
But let me go back to my original question. What, besides sending out a bunch of feel-good tweets saying obvious things, can be done about it? I'm pretty sure the tweets are useless from a practical point of view.
Anyone?
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
ismnotwasm
(42,482 posts)Seriously?
I take it you don't find social media effective?
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)So this guy decides to literally wage a "War on Women". He first kills his roommates who he was angry at for successfully dating women, likely because they treated their dates with respect (also, no doubt, them not being psychopaths might have had something to do with it). Then he starts killing women.
But hark! Had he only read a tweet: "Don't be a psychopathic murdering misogynistic asshole!" and all of this could have been prevented. He would have thrown up his hands and said, "You know? They're right! Why didn't I think of this before?" Then gotten sensitivity training and donated generously to planned parenthood.
Seem unlikely?
Heck. Even for non-psychopaths, are you aware of anyone who's had their mind changed by a tweet? The anti-choice movement is on twitter as well. Do you feel convinced by their missives? Do you even read them?
I'm always interested in seeing if there is anything that can actually be done in these situations, but forget political realities, I'm not even seeing any actual ideas.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
redqueen
(115,173 posts)It doesn't surprise me at all that you're not included in that group.
The rest of us are moving forward.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Any studies showing it's not all just preaching to an already converted choir?
I'm not seeing any. And I did look.
It doesn't surprise me at all that you're not included in that group - of people who are evidence based. Sad to say.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
ismnotwasm
(42,482 posts)I'm interested in your answer.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)I'm not sure I have any answers myself.
The best I can come up with this this: maybe we should start putting psychological tests in schools looking for signs of sociopathy. Maybe assign extra counseling when you find a strong match.
This can work, because I do know that these sorts of things are spectrum disorders. Just like with autism, you might be able to get children with sociopathic tendencies the help they need to move them away from turning into full bore psychopaths.
Again, it's just a thought. But at least it has the faintest possibility of working. What we currently do, which is to fixate on some aspect of the mass murder's life ("He played video games!", "He was a Muslim!", "He was angry at women for not getting any!" , and pretend that there is something in our culture which caused this, clearly isn't going to work.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
ismnotwasm
(42,482 posts)He said put in enough social workers and resources for the number of kids in schools and they would catch sociopathic behavior right away.
This was a discussion about non-gendered violence however, but there might be an answer in education boys on sexism, harmful ideas of masculinity, as well as the expectation of male violence. We teach males that violence is an appropriate response, tell them they're helpless in the face of hormones (testosterone) , interestingly, there has been an increase in violence from young girls as well, so this message of violence as answer has proliferated. The question is how. Males, are (duh) more violent, against women, against each other then women are, are often taught to feel sexually entitled, have ideas of masculinity that ranges from antiquated to dangerous.
We are in a time of flux.
That this young man spouted off hate speech against women, doesn't make him anymore disturbed than murderous racists, or anti-Semites. That he killed women probably felt like the only thing he had left to do. It probably felt right. What he expressed was sexual frustration and went right down the line with MRA talking points, much like an Racist would to justify killing with racist talking points.
Did he see women as human? I wonder-- no I don't wonder- he didn't
I'm not saying he wasn't disturbed, I'm saying he was participating in hate, in this case misogyny.
I disagree about social media, because this is what kids are using, what they are exposed too, hashtags and online activism can reach the unreachable, teach the ones who have had exposure to only one way of conflict resolution. Are there better ways? Sure. But we need to use every resource we have.
I imagine you are not a Dworkin fan, but read these words, feel the exhaustion, the despair of the woman who wrote then. While this is about rape--we are still talking about male to female violence
During Which There Is No Rape
1983
I have thought a great deal about how a feminist, like myself, addresses an audience primarily of political men who say that they are antisexist. And I thought a lot about whether there should be a qualitative difference in the kind of speech I address to you. And then I found myself incapable of pretending that I really believe that that qualitative difference exists. I have watched the men's movement for many years. I am close with some of the people who participate in it. I can't come here as a friend even though I might very much want to. What I would like to do is to scream: and in that scream I would have the screams of the raped, and the sobs of the battered; and even worse, in the center of that scream I would have the deafening sound of women's silence, that silence into which we are born because we are women and in which most of us die.
And if there would be a plea or a question or a human address in that scream, it would be this: why are you so slow? Why are you so slow to understand the simplest things; not the complicated ideological things. You understand those. The simple things. The cliches. Simply that women are human to precisely the degree and quality that you are.
And also: that we do not have time. We women. We don't have forever. Some of us don't have another week or another day to take time for you to discuss whatever it is that will enable you to go out into those streets and do something. We are very close to death. All women are. And we are very close to rape and we are very close to beating. And we are inside a system of humiliation from which there is no escape for us. We use statistics not to try to quantify the injuries, but to convince the world that those injuries even exist. Those statistics are not abstractions. It is easy to say, "Ah, the statistics, somebody writes them up one way and somebody writes them up another way." That's true. But I hear about the rapes one by one by one by one by one, which is also how they happen. Those statistics are not abstract to me. Every three minutes a woman is being raped. Every eighteen seconds a woman is being beaten. There is nothing abstract about it. It is happening right now as I am speaking.
And it is happening for a simple reason. There is nothing complex and difficult about the reason. Men are doing it, because of the kind of power that men have over women. That power is real, concrete, exercised from one body to another body, exercised by someone who feels he has a right to exercise it, exercised in public and exercised in private. It is the sum and substance of women's oppression.
It is not done 5000 miles away or 3000 miles away. It is done here and it is done now and it is done by the people in this room as well as by other contemporaries: our friends, our neighbors, people that we know. Women don't have to go to school to learn about power. We just have to be women, walking down the street or trying to get the housework done after having given one's body in marriage and then having no rights over it.
More:http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIIE.html
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)And that's what I see missing with the focus on this psychopath. Psychopaths are rare. And they'll always find some excuse. For example, Ted Kaczynski (the unibomber) was murdering for an ideology that is remarkably similar to some held by the more extremist D.U.ers, but I don't therefore go trying to claim everyone who holds such an ideology is a murderer.
To me, the real problem is when a culture starts convincing non-psychopathic men to engage in this sort of behavior, and furthermore, for women to just accept it. We know, for instance, that all rapes are committed by just 6% of men. However, over 30% of women are sexually assaulted at least some time in their lives. So how are these two statistics reconciled? By realizing that, on average, a rapist victimizes over five women before something is done (or he stops on his own).
What we need to do, therefore, as a society is to: 1) Reduce the social consequence of making a rape accusation, and 2) Encourage more women to do so.
And this is where it gets tough. From what I've read, much of the problem seems to stem from the issue that for a woman to make a rape accusation, she has to first admit to herself she's been raped. And this is difficult to do. (You see this effect, by the way, in many relationship-advice forums - a woman will start an OP complaining about a "bad date", but the scenario she describes isn't a date at all, it's flat out date-rape.) I'm almost to the idea that what we need to do is to just rename the crime to "Failure to Receive Explicitly Articulated Consent" to remove the stigma, and tell the victims that if she didn't say yes, she needs to make an accusation.
It's even harder for male rape victims.
Again, I have a bias for actual action. I'd like to see society move forward. Twitter Activism doesn't strike me as likely to change anything. But I do know a couple of state legislators, so I can run something past them. See what they think.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
p.s. I didn't think much of Dworkin when I was young. Now I see her as more someone with PTSD over brutalities she'd suffered from her husband, and can see how she'd generalize this to all men.
ismnotwasm
(42,482 posts)I both agree and disagree; while I agree violence is normalized, gender based violence is even more culturally ingrained and considered inevitable. There are 400,000 back logged raped kits around the country unprocessed. When Detroit processed 100 of these, they found 12 serial rapists.
Women are still subjected to the type of 'what were you wearing' type of questioning, there is social stigma and shame--and There may be women who question whether their experience was actually rape, but I don't see that later as as the major problem of under reporting as the former.
All women live in a kind of primal fear, we can't walk freely in many places men can without feeling uncomfortable, if not actually frightened.
Dworkin most certainly had PTSD, but she saw the brutality women experience from the inside. Her writings are quite good.
I like your action based answer, I would point out that the beginning of action has to be awareness. If we increase awareness, perhaps we can start with real education
redqueen
(115,173 posts)I sincerely could not care less about your opinions. Believe whatever you like, but your 'where are the studies showing online social justice movements change anyone's minds?' schtick simply shows your lack of awareness. People here on DU have changed over the years, and so have many others ... your ignorance of that fact changes nothing.
Believe that you're right and everyone in this group is just wasting their time. Just go do it elsewhere. People have answered you and you don't like what they say. Time for you to stop disrupting in here with your 'educate me' tactics and move on.
IronLionZion
(47,215 posts)so it gets more people talking about the ideas and policies and prevention etc. when they may not have thought about it much before. It encourages thought on the subject.
For example: "Don't rape her" is probably not going to convince a rapist to change his ways. But it will raise awareness among the rapist's friends and associates who might be more vigilant. This reduces the opportunities to rape someone and increases the likelihood of reporting it if it does happen. Its supposed to increase the support and reduce the shame when reporting it also. It's purpose is cultural change. Which is why they say "rape culture".
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)A few academics may disagree with your allegation that social media is "comically ineffective"
"This finding suggests that the new technologies, represented by social media, may be changing the communication pattern throughout the United States..."
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802563/)
"It reveals how social media enhanced and ignited people’s desire for democracy and socio-economic advancement stalled by the long term authoritarian government. The main focus is on the importance of social media as a platform for discussion of ideas, experiences, and knowledge exchange..."
(http://ro.uow.edu.au/meme/vol1/iss1/3/?utm_source=ro.uow.edu.au%2Fmeme%2Fvol1%2Fiss1%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages)
Additionally, successful boycotts against Nestlé, Kimberly-Clark and De Beers each originated online through social media content sites. I think 'comically ineffective" is at best, an unsourced editorial.
The Traveler
(5,632 posts)Not trying to be rude ... but your comment leaves me genuinely perplexed. Is it possible that you are really that unaware of the psychological basis of marketing and propaganda? (Or is it that you just haven't thought to consider that in the context of this event yet?) How do you think that stuff operates? It is simply this: We become what we think about. If you want someone to be more conservative in outlook, for example, immerse them in a never ending barrage of conservative talking points and memes. This is the Fox News approach, is it not?
Now, this person was raised in a Democratic household, but he apparently found comfort in an environment that was considerably different in value structure. That is the environment in which he chose to do much of his thinking, and why not? There is plenty of support in our culture for that kind of sick thinking, plenty of sources for validation and other positive feedback. I cannot speculate on why he made that choice since I know nothing of these people, and the phrase "Democratic household" sheds relatively little reliable light on how this boy was actually reared. Nor do we know nearly enough about his psychological condition to speculate. But, in general, it is safe to say that when cultural leaders nurture through action and expression destructive cognitive processes (like misogyny) some sick twerp is going to wind up acting out in kind.
In summation, cultural leaders (be they political or, as another poster mentioned, religious leaders) can have a profound effect on anyone, and in that effect is likely to be more pronounced upon the behavior of the mentally perturbed. This is obvious and so widely understood I don't know how to address your apparent difficulty in understanding the point. And, again, I am not trying be snarky or accuse you of being deliberately dense. You may not agree with this point, but have offered no logical argument that refutes it.
Trav
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)You've explained it very well there.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)But this kid was clearly not from a right wing Tea Party household, going to a "Christian" college, and being inundated with messages about traditional gender roles, etc. In fact, it was nearly the opposite. He came from a rich, liberal household, was going to a liberal dominated college, and California's culture isn't exactly the South. So it's not me making the outlandish assertions. I'm rather doing the opposite: pointing out that the evidence in this case doesn't jibe at all with a message of "blame his woman-hating upbringing that we can change with tweets".
I personally think that he was just a classic psychopath. His brain just flat out was incapable of feeling empathy. Towards women or men. That seems to fit Occam's Razor quite a bit more closely, don't you think?
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)In countries around the globe the two often overlap. The fundamentalist influence on politics with regard to women's lives becomes more and more evident every day. When powerful religious leaders preach that women don't even have the right to the autonomy of their own bodies we witness its political effectiveness in the rollback of reproduction rights and the shutting of clinics. These are legislators who use God to justify outrageous levels of misogyny and fashion it into law. These same men who think women have no place in the leadership of the church also believe women have no place as equal partners in the home, the workplace, the country. They know this because the Bible tells them so, at least in their version of it. They've got to preach it in the schools, implement it in the workplace, enforce it in the bedroom, legislate it in the halls of Congress. The following example is just one of the most outrageous examples of how this works: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/16/426850/democratic-women-boycott-issas-contraception-hearing-for-preventing-women-from-testifying/
Some might say I'm straying from the topic here but I disagree. What frustrates me is that there seems to exist either a lack of recognition of or an unwillingness to confront the unholy alliance of church and state in creating a misogynic society. We tiptoe around the subject as to not hurt someone's feelings. Well that's just bullcrap my friends and it's exactly what the purveyors of misogyny count on -- that we'll react well, like "women", not wanting to bruise anyone's delicate ego especially if it involves religion, even to the point of silencing ourselves. Right here on DU there are those who would contend that we have a choice -- we can support the war on poverty OR women's rights. We can fight for environmental protections OR women's rights. Etc, etc, etc. But not both. So women are asked to choose either the planet or their rights, or between the poor and their rights, or between income inequality and their rights. The arguments are posited as a choice for which women must make the sacrifice and too often, some do just that. Anything else is called selfish. I see it all the time on what is touted as a progressive forum. The fact that it should be a choice at all is a ridiculous, manipulative fallacy. It's apparently an effective one because once again I find myself embroiled in just such a debate on DU, watching way too many women fall into that same old trap, rushing to the defense of an avowed and powerful misogynist and homophobe because we must sublimate the cause of our basic human rights to whatever causes supersede them... and that list seems endless. I've got news for some of those folks --as long as we are so willing to make the sacrifice there are those who are more than willing to take it. Our turn will never come if we validate and empower the very people whose aim is to oppress us. Those in power will not grant us respect for being acquiescent; they will only despise us the more for it.
If we want to formulate strategies for how to reform a society shaped by misogynic dogmas that are in turn enforced by legislated policies, we simply must face the fact that patriarchal religions have way too much influence in the political sphere. (That holds true no matter where you go or what you believe.) We can't afford to ignore this elephant in the room, hoping that if we don't make eye contact it will miraculously disappear. The more we hint at any trepidation in confronting this issue the more WOMEN WILL DIE. Not at some point in the distant future -- TODAY, tomorrow, and every tomorrow after that. They will die because too many boys and men are indoctrinated from birth that women are lesser human beings, that women's lives and bodies were created to service their needs, that a woman's value can only be measured by the degree to which she is willing to sacrifice herself on the altar of what we are told is "the greater good".
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Re: the Hobby Lobby decision. This is what happens when you play nice.
yuiyoshida
(42,973 posts)Retweeted.
SunSeeker
(54,137 posts)It is generally not considered a mental illness. Instead, you hear terms like crime of passion or flight of rage. I have never heard the MSM call it what it is: misogyny.
redqueen
(115,173 posts)And of course, nobody mentions misogyny.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)the ubiquitous instances of misogyny and sexism we experience every day, especially here on DU, where so many try to derail us or shut us up with accusations of "radical feminism," "man-haters," "gender wars," and similar diminishing pejoratives. (And, I still wonder why the men who created this "liberal" website tolerate these glaring instances of misogyny and sexism!)
redqueen
(115,173 posts)Do those spewing it seriously not realize that they sound exactly like people who try to dismiss, minimize, and shut down discussions about poverty with idiotic complaints about 'class war'? I guess not. Either way it won't stop women from speaking up and challenging this shit. More women are finding their voices every day.
Oh and I'm very proud to be a radical feminist so they can keep on stupidly using that as an insult. Like conservatives who use 'liberal' as an insult, it only advertises their ignirance.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)yup
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts) 
thucythucy
(8,779 posts)I can't thank you enough for this OP.
redqueen
(115,173 posts)There are so many people out there speaking up and fighting back.
Their voices demonstrate that the callous disregard so popular on DU is the opposite of the progressive views out there.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)director's son.
The Hollywood connection eerily recalls a similar rampage in the same town 13 years ago, when David Attias, the son of director Dan Attias — whose credits include "Entourage" and other well-known TV shows — ran down and killed four people with his car near the university after having being spurned by a woman.
But, move along folks, nothing to see here.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)It's time to deal with the fact that American society still has it's problems with misogyny.....yes, even if many men are still decent folks, the problems are there. They do exist. And they need to be dealt with. As they should have been years ago.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)not even have to be scary. and the rewards are certainly there.
but ya... we would all have to be a tad more honest than what we are.
Squinch
(53,316 posts)First, the insistence of MANY posters that this murderer's motivations are really kind of understandable and that he is just sad and misguided because of the evils in his world (which equals women) and the fact that "no one would listen to him!" 
And second, the dismissive anger of many posters to the idea that this event highlights the need to discuss misogyny and how it is spread, or the idea that this even has anything to do with misogyny.
My other favorite approach to this issue is: "So what's YOUR solution! Talking about his hatred for women doesn't prevent him from killing people, so therefore you are stupid to talk about it. Unless you have the magical cure for this problem (you know, the one we see all around us), you are stupid to talk about it." This is usually accompanied by some smarmy self-righteous superiority trip on the part of the speaker.
There's a lot of sick out there. And right here at DU home for that matter.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)In just the past year, however, the situation appears to have gotten MUCH worse and I don't think that's just my imagination.
Squinch
(53,316 posts)to have the same amount of choice and freedom as men is something that makes some people desperate and belligerent, and as we insist more and more on it, they seem to feel the need to fight it harder and harder.
... and often bring in their friends and their socks into the arguments.
Peregrine Took
(7,513 posts)It's all in the eyes and demeanor.
IronLionZion
(47,215 posts)
ismnotwasm
(42,482 posts)With kindness, and a little grace.
redqueen
(115,173 posts)I deal with misogynists the same way I deal with homophobes.
It isn't gently.
ismnotwasm
(42,482 posts)If it's misogyny masked as fear-- fuck 'em.
But there are vulnerable ones, the fearful, the awkward. I try to be kind.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)murder and we carry on loving and taking care of, with great hope.
what... are men so very fuggin afraid of. i still have not gotten an answer i am satisfied with.
ismnotwasm
(42,482 posts)I've met a few like that, they're scared of men and women now that I think about it.
(OT-- found a FB page started with a few survivors from my time on the street back in the day--it's a trip, never thought I'd revisit that part of my life)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)so i knew where you were coming from. but that lead me to the conversation about men being fearful. that would be like i keep reading.
men are fearful at being laughed at
women fearful of being murdered. or whatever.
i mutilate sayings.
but.. i think there is an underlining issue with the fearful for men.
OT... isnt that interesting. how in the world did you find. i bet that is something.
i have had people from a couple decades ago step into my life recently. it is an odd feel.
ismnotwasm
(42,482 posts)When I read about 'nice guys' and 'bad boys' I want to tell people let me give you a REAL example of a 'bad boy'
If I learned anything from the street is to stay away from assholes. A lot of girls did. Those were some hard girls back then. I found one I actually used to stay with, but I can barely recall her--she remembers me though.
Edit: totally get your meaning about relative gender fear--you are absolutely correct
IronLionZion
(47,215 posts)which can include the bad stuff. Women can beat, rape, and murder. They do it to other women, so of course they can do it to men and children.
Fear is part of human nature. We all have fears of some sort, to some degree. Some men are afraid to talk to women. Others are afraid women will abuse or murder them. And if something does happen, there's the fear that no one will believe it or care.
Some of it is real and some is mostly imagined. Fear can also cause all sorts of irrational behavior. Think of a cornered animal, or an abused pit bull. Better handling of our fears can go a long way towards improving communication and relationships.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)but, I was reading another thread in GD where a man said that "men love and desire women"
and that plural .... women ....
it hit me. that is part of the issue at hand.
men love and Desire WOMEN (ie = multiple partners) speaking in generalities here
whereas,
women love and desire One Man (speaking in generalities here again)
even though both may have multiple sex partners.
it is the difference of thought process behind it that makes men think they are entitled to any and all women.
why do men think that all women should be attracted to them.
why don't we all as individuals realize that to love and desire any one other individual is not easy if done to the best of one's ability.
yuiyoshida
(42,973 posts)On a recent post the word "Pussies" was used. I flagged it, and it was 6-1 to leave it. Why? Cause they said what he said in the rest of the post was valid, and why HIDE a post that had such meaning.
Sure, lets just let it slide on by. If he has used another word that was offensive, lets just let it slide by? Really? I sent him a message in private asking him to remove the offensive word. I am hoping he will do so, but there are no guarantees.. are there?
redqueen
(115,173 posts)Anti-female slurs are still considered socially acceptable. I expect this board to be a step ahead of society in general about such issues, but misogyny is sadly still very deeply ingrained in too many people's consciousness. It's not even recognized as misogyny. It's just 'the way things are'.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)progressive than some of the very vocal men and women... on this board. i have men talk to me in ways that NO man in my life EVER would speak to me that way. or any women. just not gonna happen. i have men of course that will vote republican, yet support womens rights in assumptions like pay and abortion, education, run a business, be a profession. all the supposed liberal womens issues, AND be respectful to women. even.... gasp..... feminists. me. they are not afraid.
damn sad when my republican men are more progressive adn respectful than a progressive democratic board.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)you took on this and then coming in here and sharing. always interesting.
i have been enjoying your threads, also.
but.... yesterday i got a p word hid. that is a 50/50 along with the b word.
call me a b word or feminists and especially hof, then the odds of a hide is almost nil.
a republican woman? closer to 50/50. and can almost promise a hide if it is someone we like.
there was a republican talking about cowardly bitches. and as predicted, the OUTRAGE. now. this would be after thread after thread people telling us the B word is not genderist, not offensive, a buddy word. really. we OWN that word.
but, every post was outraged the republican would dare to using language like that.
not a day later we get a post with .... feminists, man hating bitches, and it stands.
it is interesting. but i see misogynist slurs, and i mean all of them. the worst of them. i see misogynist slurs sittin' at a 50/50 chance of a hide.
that is not good enough odds on a democratic board.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Good to see you! 
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Thank You!