A Brief (But Timely) Guide to Misogyny

[Pamela Troy]

…that buck-toothed witch Satan, Hillary Clinton… No, she is a -- she is a -- Oh, God! She is evil…Bill Clinton and his fat ugly wife, Satan….” (Don Imus, writhing his way through a hategasm on Imus in the Morning, 5/24/06)

The word “misogyny” frequently induces eye-rolls and resigned sighs from men, especially when they come up in the context of a political campaign and a woman candidate. Utter the “M” word while talking about the kind of coverage Hillary Clinton has endured in the course of her campaign, and some men, liberal and conservative, will wearily shake their heads.

Then they’ll lean forward in their seats, resting their elbows on their knees and, gazing earnestly into our faces, explain with a great show of patience that “if you run for office, you will be criticized.” They will say this gently, enunciating carefully so we’ll be sure to understand. The word “pretty” will be invoked, as in “politics isn’t a pretty business.” (This is an effort to speak our language. Men who engage in this brand of theater seem to think women use the word “pretty” a lot.)

In short, many of the men out there – not all, but many – will respond to female complaints about sexism as they would to a group of not very bright twelve-year-old girls.

Misogyny, like any other form of bigotry, involves imposing a narrative. The bigot dons a costume (reasonable and/or experienced), dresses his or her target up (uppity/dishonest/violent if the target is black, shrill/hysterical/irrational if it’s a woman) and then acts out a little scene.

This is not to say that every accusation of racism or sexism is warranted, or that every person who argues with such accusations is a racist or a sexist. It is to say that all too often, the response to complaints about “racism” or “sexism” is based, not on the facts presented or the arguments offered, but on the race or gender of the accuser.

I’m offering here a quick overview of three of the most common breed of misogynists infesting both the online and offline world. Most women of a certain age will probably recognize them. As for younger women, if you haven’t met all of these yet, don’t get too complacent. Eventually you will.

And yes guys, I know, not all men are misogynists – not by a long shot. But enough of you are to warrant this guide.

We begin with misogyny at its most primitive, the kind anyone over the age of six can recognize because it’s the first form of it we encounter, usually on a playground at grammar school. Most men grow out of it. There is, however, a noisy minority who sailed through puberty and into adulthood without getting past the “icky-gurls” stage. You can find them most frequently on talk radio or the Internet (particularly in comments on youtube.) Some of them are probably about fourteen, but far too many of them don’t have that excuse.

THE SLOBBERING YAHOO

Who are you fooling? Just who do you think you're fooling, you little weasel, you. You harridan, you. Who do you think you're fooling with your new hairdo and your lipstick going up to your nose? How many different Botox treatments do you have to get till you realize that nobody believes you…You lying little witch, you….. (Michael Savage on The Savage Nation, 1/8/07)

I’m not talking here about some guy who’s had a bad day and is venting to his buddies about Cindy Sheehan or Ann Coulter. The Slobbering Yahoo hates women so much he can barely sit still in his seat when he talks about us. His rhetoric consistently reveals a psyche riddled with images of whores, witches, harridans, cosmetic surgery, cucumbers, alimony, etc... He may deny hating women, claiming that his heterosexuality and a string of failed marriages indicates otherwise, but this alleged sexual preference seems to have something, shall we say, “conflicted” about it. (It can’t be healthy to be erotically attracted to any group for whom you feel such unbridled contempt.)

One way to attract specimens of Slobbering Yahoos online is for someone using a feminine name to post either a pro-gun control or an anti-war opinion online. Another is to post regular pieces on matters like sexual harassment and discrimination, something guaranteed to upset the SY crowd. Since the Slobbering Yahoo seems to believe, pitiably, that all women are intent on enticing him into sex, his arguments frequently begin with -- and often consist almost entirely of -- calling women who’ve displeased him “ugly/fat/old.” Obviously, this is not intended to convince anyone. (“I was originally leaning in favor of a government ban on assault rifles, but now that Realtexasmarine has responded to her cited statistics on gun deaths by saying that Pamela Troy is probably single, overweight, and physically unattractive, I’ve reassessed that stance.”) My guess is that the SY, still emotionally mired in third grade, fondly imagines the woman he’s insulted reading it bursting into tears, and avoiding mirrors and the computer for the rest of the day.

I'd much rather have a pole dancer than a burnt out hag like you…

Now I know you are a fattie and single…

I love women, but would not be with a fat one, which I am sure you are representative of.

(From a regular contributor to the comments section of a blog on women’s issues)

The reality, of course, is that any normal female blogger or letter writer is going to be more relieved than dismayed by the implication that the SY isn’t attracted to her. While sensible women are profoundly wary of Slobbering Yahoos, the overriding emotion SYs inspire is not shock and awe but contempt. They’re so obvious they embarrass the other misogynists.

Now, on to the more insidious examples like:

THE COURTLY GENT

You are -- I'm not allowed to say this, but I'll say it -- you're beautiful and you're smart. And you've got a huge radio audience. OK?.. .I get in trouble for this, but you're great looking, obviously. You're one of the gods' gifts to men in this country.
(Chris Matthews to author Laura Ingraham 9/12/07)

The Courtly Gent’s basic premise is similar to the Slobbering Yahoo’s in that he believes -- or pretends to believe -- that women are so obsessed with our personal appearance that we enjoy having our looks expounded on by someone who’s supposed to be talking about our writing or discussing the day’s stock market. The woman being “complimented” in this manner just can’t win. If she complains about it, the misogynist will affect wide-eyed bewilderment – “but it was a compliment!” If she doesn’t complain, her silence is cited when the rest of us complain about his treatment of her. “She wasn’t insulted!”

An alternative approach by the Courtly Gent is to affect the air of an old fashioned romantic who “idealizes” women and just can’t understand why we would want to get involved in such sordid activities as politics, law, high finance, etc. One of the most well-publicized instances of this occurred back in the ‘80s when Ronald Reagan, speaking before a woman’s organization, said something to the effect that if it weren’t for women, men would still be unshaven grunters living in caves. (As I recall, his audience was politely uncharmed by the image of woman as the eternal nag who at last got mankind out of its sloppy bachelor pad and into a tie.) A more recent example came from Tucker Carlson:

You could make the counter case that most women are so sensible, they don't want to get involved in something as stupid as politics. (Tucker Carlson to Feminist Majority President Eleanor Smeal, Tucker 11/6/07)

Most women don’t buy this approach for one moment, but when we say so the response from Courtly Gents is generally more “bewilderment.” If there’s a lot of publicity, we get to watch prominent CGs telling each other on talk shows and editorial pages they just can’t for the life of them, figure out what was insulting about what was said…

I’ll believe that Tucker Carlson and other Courtly Gents are unable to grasp what was insulting about his comments the day I see them offering similarly stereotypical “compliments” to black or Jewish guests on their talk shows.

“Senator Obama, I saw you last night at the Washington Ball, and you truly are a amazing dancer. Such a great sense of rhythm! And you looked so handsome, so manly, shucking and jiving out on that dance floor! You know, if it weren’t for black people, American music would still be stuck in barbershop quartets and square dances. Why do African Americans want to get involved in something as silly as politics anyway?”

“Hey, what’s the matter? Where are you going? It was a compliment!”

THE “HONEST” GUY

It can`t be just me. I know it`s not. I mean, if there`s somebody in your life whose voice just sticks in your ear like an ice pick, somebody who makes every part of you just clench every time they speak. Yes, the senator and presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has a voice like that. It makes me envy the deaf. It does. 

She could be saying, "All right, Glenn, I want to give Glenn Beck $1 million," and all I`d hear is, "Take out the garbage…Oh, I swear to you. I think Hillary`s voice makes angels cry.” (Glenn Beck, 3/29/07)

Like The Courtly Gent, The “Honest” Guy feigns good-natured confusion about women. The image he seeks to project is that of the nice fellow who tries, truly he tries! But his down home honesty will out, and the truth is that there’s just something about women that’s irritating as Hell. Quite frequently, as in the above quote, what prompts his heartfelt confession is the horrid sound of a woman talking.

That stack of idiotic hay made about Howard Dean’s legendary “scream,” is tiny compared to the barnful we’ve seen about Hillary Clinton’s speaking voice. It’s obviously not surprising to hear a professional SY like Marc Rudov tell Neil Cavuto that Hillary Clinton is, “shrill,” and that “When Hillary speaks, men hear ‘Take out the garbage.’” (What is it about the words “take out the garbage” that sets these guys off?) But often supposedly reasonable male commentators will morph abruptly into HGs, responding with to any sign of female irritation or emotion as if it the woman in question had “lost it.” Most "Honest" Guys these days are savvy enough not to actually use the word “hysteria,” but anyone listening or reading will get the idea.

When Hillary Clinton gave a heated, but quite reasonable and articulate response during the New Hampshire debates, Joel Achenbach, a writer on the supposedly more dignified Washington Post, suggested “a radio-controlled shock collar so that aides can zap her when she starts to get screechy.” The New York Observer claimed she was “almost screaming.” Jake Tapper of ABC News offered up a succinct specimen of the “Honest” Guy on his blog when he declared about that moment that “Frankly, I don’t even really understand what she was saying.” Readers of the above link should note Tapper’s classic “Honest” Guy show of gallant reluctance in delivering the bad news. “And then she…well…she got angry,” he says sadly, acting out a man of good will struggling to find the most tactful way to describe what happened without using the “H” word and offending the gals.

All of this is must be delivered with the appropriate emoticons. Brows are furrowed, heads are shaken, mouths are pursed in moues of dignified distress. Countless little one act plays are enacted about a perplexed guy whose honest efforts to listen to a woman are confounded by her female obnoxiousness. If, like Glenn Beck, the “Honest” Guy has a histrionic streak, his eyes meet the camera and women viewers recognize the staged anguish of that undergraduate breakup line, “It’s not you, it’s me.”

It doesn’t, of course, have to be her voice. It can be how she laughs, how she claps, how she does her hair, how often she blinks, and how she ages. Really, it’s implied, if she wants to be heard, she’s going to have to do something about those annoying tics that he’s tried to ignore, but (sigh) just can’t. He’s a reasonable man, is The “Honest” Guy. All a woman has to do is change the way she talks, dresses, walks, wears her hair, sits, applauds, laughs, ages, smiles, handles her fork, frowns, or expresses annoyance.

She’s sure to hit on something he finds tolerable, if she just keeps trying…

There are, of course, other kinds of misogynists – The Flasher, The Woman Who’s Wunnathaguys, The Expert On Women, The Wounded Little Boy, The Online Troll in Drag, The Self-Appointed Therapist – but these tend to be subsets of the three I’ve described above. And, of course, there’s some overlap. Courtly Gents can become “Honest” Guys and vice versa, and I’ve seen cases where both have devolved into Slobbering Yahoos.

There’s not much a woman can do about these types other than try to avoid being played. Almost all of them are masks some men – and even some women – put on when they don’t want to actually listen to a woman. No, merely disagreeing with a woman and saying so does not make someone a misogynist, but when one of these masks turns up in an argument, any smart woman will take note of it. They are often invoked by someone who’s losing a debate and is hoping to get a woman to shut up and back away.

Shutting women up, is, after all, really what it’s all about.

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[devilgrrl]

2. Why are men who say such things usually the ugliest motherf*$%ers alive?

Anyone else ever notice that?

[BrklynLiberal]

5. Bwaahaahaa.. sooooo true!!!

[Karenina]

94. With flabby pot bellies and bumper stickers that say

NO FAT CHICKS.

[Sugar Smack]

9. *hmmhmm*

:rofl: YES

[blondeatlast]

83. Yes indeed. nt

[Chulanowa]

114. Same reason all the white supremacists look like naked mole rats, I think

"The White Race is the superior race!"

[Vektor]

116. That creature...

is far cuter, snugglier, and more endearing than any white supremacist, slobbering misogynist I have ever seen.

By far.

But I see your point. :-)

Edited to add: I have always had an affinity for animals which are not "classically cute" particularly winners of "ugly dog" contests, bald wrinkly felines, and the unfortunate and unfairly maligned naked mole rat.

Thanks for posting this funny little picture. :hi:

[Chulanowa]

119. I'm in the same camp

Though given the fact mole rats will more or less chew through anything that bumps hteir nose, I'd avoid snuggling one :D

My personal favorite is the hyena:


But of course, the rare and elusive Midnight Oiler deserves special "freaky creature that we love anyway" mention...


Chewing and two pictures about eating... I think I'm hungry tonight.

[Vektor]

120. Hahahah...

The "Midnight Oiler" - awesome.

The hyena is pretty damn endearing as well.

Right up there with these funny little critters:

[Djinn]

122. the rabid Midnight Oiler

has now been completely domesticated and can be hand fed at Parliament House. If you throw him a few votes he'll sing you a song about how nice the Tamar Valley will look after the Pulp Mill goes in.

[EstimatedProphet]

166. Why is that germaine?

[BrklynLiberal]

3. This country is infested with it...even on the part of some of the women themselves.

I would not vote for or against Hillary due to her gender.
This so-called modern country has so very, veyr far to go before it can truly be deemed "civilized."

Superb post.

[Sugar Smack]

4. WOW.

Brilliantly composed. Wow. K&R.

[Staph]

6. Brava!

And fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night (or afternoon).

[distantearlywarning]

7. This is so true.

I've met all three of these types out there.

[prairierose]

8. Thanks. Pamela,...

for articulating this in such easily understood language.

:kick:

[Joanie Baloney]

10. Sometimes, stupidity is just stupidity

And not misogyny. Sounds like you've got yourself a touch of misandry there, Pamela. I guess if you look hard enough you'll find what you're looking for.

:shrug:

[Sugar Smack]

13. You. Did. Not.

:wow: That was, IMHO, one of the best pieces ever put together about violent, crazy & nasty assertions against women. It was beautifully prepared, and given to us free. It's not misandrony.

[Joanie Baloney]

21. I'm glad you liked it

I just happen to think that men (all humans, in fact) are individuals and complex and should not be lumped into categories. Just as women should not be. Yes, these examples are rude and demeaning, but I don't think it's a "man" thing. I think it's a "stupid" thing.

Just my perspective. :)

[Pamela Troy]

35. Do you think prejudice exists?

Racism exists? If so, why not misogyny?

[Sugar Smack]

44. You.

:pals: I wish I could give you something back for that OP, btw. Welcome to DU.

[dysfunctional press]

86. yes,it exists- but not to the extent that you seem to see it.

but then, i guess that for all the women-hating men out there, you've got to expect just as many men-hating women.

:hi:

[noiretextatique]

91. to what extent does prejudice exist?

and do you think different people have different perceptions? for example, do you think white, upper-class.male laywer who lives in hartford, ct. would perceive racism differently than a black, female police officer in miami, fl.?

[dysfunctional press]

204. it wasn't predjudice that i was referring to limited existence-wise, so much as misogyny...

but yes, i'm sure that like most things, different people definitely have different perceptions, based both on their current conditons, and the stuff they picked up(or had forced upon them) along the way.

[Avemedea]

134. But how do you handle the reality of the rest of us?

That is, how do you handle the fact that I'm not a man-hater and Pam isn't a man-hater and that we ain't alone? How do you deal with the fact that problems exist (beside your current strategy of accusing those who point them out of being haters)?

[dysfunctional press]

199. i'm not sure of what you're asking, exactly...

and i never accused anyone of being a man-hater, so i don't know where you got that idea, either...:shrug:

[Sugar Smack]

43. Well, it's true stupidity does exist-

I guess my thing is that it's been used in so many evil and destructive ways it's hard for me to dismiss if it affects attitude, pay, marriages.

Peace, sis.:toast:

[motocicleta]

113. Ms. Troy is not talking about men.

She is talking about misogynists. They are not men, and do not deserve to be treated as individuals until their behavior comes into compliance with standards of civility, humility, dignity, and equality.

[Djinn]

124. did the OP say it was a "man" thing

She also talks about women who do this. You're absolutely right that not all misogyny is practiced by men and not all men are misogynists (which theOP also points out though one rarely feels the need to say "not all white people are racist" when talking about David Duke)

How can you contend that the constant focus on the "screeching" tone of Clinton's voice and the way she looks is simply stupidity and not sexism?

Since when has a man been subject to that much talk about their appearance?

[Prophet 451]

132. Apart from John Edwards haircut?

Relax, it's a joke.

[gollygee]

139. It's a joke, but it's a pretty good example of the same problem

to make fun of his appearance, they compare him to a woman. "Breck Girl". It's still misogyny.

[Prophet 451]

190. Breck Girl?

Sorry, I'm a Brit, I think that one must have passed me by.

[gollygee]

192. Ah

That's what people were calling him for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breck_girl

I did a google image search for "breck girl" and only found one on the first page that wasn't of him.

[Prophet 451]

193. oh gawd

Poor guy. For the record,I don't give a damn how much he paid for his haircut and I continue to be amazed that anyone else does.

[pollo poco]

171. Here she comes

You know, the woman who is so much more reasonable than the rest. Thank God she's not as confused as the rest of us! Thanks for protecting men and women alike from the ravings of such unreasonable women as the OP, who clearly needs reminding that men and women are people! This reasonable woman wins the praises of all reasonable men. If only all women were so reasonable, the whole silly mess would clean itself up right away.

[lapislzi]

18. .

:popcorn:

[Terran]

19. The thing is...

at least in the case of the invective directed toward Ms. Clinton, there's always that extra heap of scorn for her *because* she's a woman that no republican dumbass would ever direct toward a male Democrat running for office. Yes, all these jerks *are* stupid, but it's more than that. I'm not sure the literal definition of misogyny applies to what they think..it may not be actual hate...but it's at least a deeply ingrained disrespect for all women. There is no denying that.

[Pamela Troy]

34. It takes no great effort

to detect the misogyny in the examples I've cited. Did you read them?

And for the record, I like men. I like people in general, in fact.

[Joanie Baloney]

48. I'm glad to hear that!

And, yes I read it. I wouldn't have replied if I hadn't. And, yes, misogyny exists (and racism and all kinds of other -isms). My problem with your post and the tone of many others I've read here is that it seems an easy bucket to throw people into and to get immediate support. Sometimes it seems that a person who has been hurt by a man (or a Mexican, etc., etc.) then looks for perceived slights in every word they hear from every member of that sub-class from then forward. I believe that is unfair.

A lot of these folks you quote (Imus, Beck, Savage) love their role as "woman-hater" because it gets them ratings. They are bullies and cowards and idiots and they do it exactly to do what they've done...to get a rise out of you.

I just don't think it serves us well to raise up another generation of men-haters.

[bettyellen]

52. "another generation of man haters" LOL is that gen X or Gen Y? Cuz I totally missed that!

[Joanie Baloney]

55. Good one!

Maybe it's Gen PMS - now THAT should get everyone really mad at me. :)

(That was humor, folks...not misogyny.)

;)

[bettyellen]

71. Joanie, this man hating stuff IS BALONEY!

[Sugar Smack]

230. AAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWW

no you didn't, again!!!! Oh, the PMS thing. Suicide! You didn't, you didn't, you didn't. OH, I'm glad I'm not you. WOW, ooooooooh.

[annabanana]

57. good grief!. . . . n/t

[Pamela Troy]

60. Is there someplace in this piece

where I indicate hatred for men? Do point it out.

[Avemedea]

67. Men haters?

Pam's rearing men-haters now? On what theory?

You say that misogyny exists. Yes, and? We're not supposed to talk about it? Apparently, your objection is to someone pointing out the prevalence of misogyny and worse, calling the misogynists out on their logical and moral inconsistencies. The reason Pam has gotten such a positive response to this essay is that she put so aptly what so many people feel viscerally but lack the articulation to express. Exposing the foolishness of misogyny and its practitioners doesn't fuel hatred or advocate hatred of any kind. Or are you saying that you feel like "hating" someone after reading this essay?

Your suggestion that Pam has over-generalized or otherwise lumped people into a bucket like so much sand on a beach is not supported by even a quick read of Pam's entry, which is pretty specific and detailed.

You can't even stick with one theory about what's wrong with her statement. On one hand you suggest that those who complain about misogyny are probably just reacting to "perceived slights" and then on the other hand shrug off blatant examples by saying that where those "slights" are definitely intentional, it is only for the sake of entertainment. Yes, of course it's great for ratings. Lynchings were also great for gathering crowds. Folks used to make a lot of money hawking souveniers during lynchings.

[Sugar Smack]

107. Y'all!

You two::pals: :yourock: :applause: What TF can I say?

[noiretextatique]

87. oh for pete's sake

people are indeed individuals, but individuals who are socialized in the same culture. of course there are sub-cultures, but institutions, e.g., schools, military, work, etc., tend to instill certain beliefs and ideas in individuals.

so...when i talk to my black friends about the odd behavior of some white people in elevators at work, most of them know exactly what i am talking about. we get challenged for being in the building, asked if we need "help" and so on. the assumption is we don't belong there, and they do.

i don't hate white people, and of course all white people don't behave that way in elevators at work, but enough of them do to make my experience similar to what other black people (and others, i am sure), experience. clearly, this elevator phenomenon is not "accidental" or "isolated" or "stupid".

and neither is misogyny. it's a part of the culture we all live in.

[Djinn]

125. mmmm

I just don't think it serves us well to raise up another generation of men-haters.

who is this generation you're talking about?

I was raised by a mother with a Masters degree who worked all my life, was always encouraged to do anything I wanted.

My folks were prog stereotypes and the old man a card carrying Commie. I guess I'd be a poster child for this "man hating" generation of which you speak, odd considering all my friends are men and I'm often castigated for my lack of female company.

Sorry that little sentence says a lot more than I expect you intended it to.

[Jamastiene]

142. You forgot to include the fact that people like Imus, Beck and

Savage are misogynists. You seem to only blame women for the fact that women-haters, as you call them, exist. It seems like you are saying it's fine to "raise up" another generation of women-haters though.

"raise up" ???

Is that you, Rush?

[Pamela Troy]

178. Well, first of all, you seem to be shifting your arguments here.

You earlier implied that I was reading misogyny into places where it didn't exist. That certainly seemed to be what you were intimating when you said, "I guess if you look hard enough you'll find what you're looking for."

Now it's not clear to me exactly what you're saying here. That you just don't want to hear obvious misogyny denounced because it inspires "man-hating" in women? Does denouncing obvious white supremacy inspire "white people-hating" in African Americans and should we therefore avoid talking about David Duke and others of his ilk?

And as for that old chestnut, "just ignore them and they'll go away," I heard that nonsense about Falwell in the '70s and Limbaugh in the '80s. Ignoring them does not make them go away. It allows the crap they espouse to become ever more entrenched in the mainstream. They're not about getting liberals mad. They're about firing up their base.

[LostinVA]

38. oh brother

[Jamastiene]

143. Don't you just love it when ol' Oxyhoarder gets bored and

decides to come fuck with us? It's Rush fucking with us again. I just know it. :eyes:

[Gormy Cuss]

80. And sometimes it's misogyny, not stupidity.

It may be stupid to ignore subtler forms of misogyny if you're female however. Stupid in that you'll get lower salary offers or get less satisfactory service if you don't recognize misogyny when you encounter it.

[Jamastiene]

140. There is plenty of stupidity in this world and the majority of it

is not misogyny. Stupidity is not always about misogyny. Misogynists are not always men. Pointing out examples of misogyny does NOT make someone a misandrist either. No one here has said they hate men at all.

But I digress: your subject line could so easily be applied to your message. Perhaps that was really your point. :eyes:

[Sam Ervin jret]

147. Look closer you'll see the truth to what she says. I've been married to one guy had 4 brothers and

raised two sons. And I can tell you - she's right on. There is hope in the new generation, but it takes constant work and re-work to remind them. The culture around them works against anything you try to enlighten them on.

[Missy M]

11. Wonderful post....

I've met all of the above and then some. I have also met the men who can't understand why a woman would want to be president, unmarried, have a successful career and so on. You know, the "what is it women want" type.

[Djinn]

126. god yeah

My personal favourite (and it's one of the Misogyny drums that women beat as much if not more than men) is the insistence that ALL women want to have kids.

I've never wanted them, OK occasionally I look at my mate's newborn and think "awwww" but I recognize that while having a kid might have nice bits it also has a whole lot of stuff I don't want.

People who have just met me think they know me well enough to insist that one day I'll change my mind simply because I'm a woman. At this point in my life you'd think the maternal urge would have kicked in. It hasn't. Very few men I know who are childless and intend remaining that way encounter the utter disbelief that I do. It's like there's some law that says ovaries must be used that doesn't apply to sperm.

[Missy M]

146. I know what you mean...

but the questions come to me because of my daughter. She has never had children so people ask me why hasn't she, will she ever and they have that sorry look in their eyes. It makes me so angry. I just answer that it's her choice. The nerve they have to ask me those questions.

[lapislzi]

12. I am totally in awe of this post.

You've hit all the coded language, the silent narrative, the dismissiveness, all of it. Sorry I can only recommend this once.

All the focus on the physical aspects of women, from the SY on down is to avoid actually having to listen to what we're saying.

Brilliant post.

[Bluestar]

14. Great post, recommend!

Wow, you even pointed out to me some instances that I didn't recognize before! Misogynists are a sneaky bunch and try to couch their prejudice in logic. Here's one: "Women are too emotional"--especially in the workplace.

[leftofthedial]

15. is it misogyny to point out

that her major policies are basically republican?

and that her campaign style so far has been Rovian?

[Terran]

20. No n/t

[lapislzi]

22. Absolutely not.

It's misogynistic to complain that her voice would shatter glass, or that she has a fat ass, or that Bill is henpecked, or that she can't cook. Or to suggest that she's too delicate to govern. Or to gush endlessly about a minor display of emotion that would be unremarkable in a male candidate.

See the difference?

I'm all for discussing the issues and her positions concerning them. And for the record, I would mostly agree with you.

[leftofthedial]

23. what about discussions of Bill Clinton's role in her campaign?

or her career?

or her positions?

[lapislzi]

31. All sounds like fair game to me.

There's been plenty of talk about the candidates' backgrounds and early careers, and there are always discussions about candidates' positions. Sen. Clinton should be subject to the same scrutiny. No more, no less. The difficulty arises when people and critics filter her positions through the lens of gender. To say that she said so-and-so because it's a woman's perspective...or...well, you see where I'm going (I hope). It is not easy to disengage from the politics of gender, even if you try.

Admittedly, Sen. Clinton is in a rather unique position because she is married to a popular ex-president. If you didn't discuss it it would be like the elephant in the living room. Bill Clinton has a role in Sen. Clinton's campaign. BFD. Why would that not be OK to discuss?

You want to call her a Republican (which I know you have), go ahead. You have good reasons for saying so, and none of them to do with her gender.

[Pamela Troy]

56. No, and no.

Were these things included in ANY of the examples of misogyny I cited?

[leftofthedial]

89. just asking

[Pamela Troy]

179. Why?

[blondeatlast]

136. No, but... Where's the discussion of the male candidates' wives in the campaign?

Obviously there has been talk of Elizabeth Edwards' role due to her illness, but there's a delicate line here.

Is he any LESS entitled to be involved than Michelle Obama or Elizabeth Edwards or Elizabeth Kucinich? Considering his popular political success, regardless of whether you approved of his policies or not, would it be wise of her to exclude him (my own opinion is that as a managerial move, including him is a wise idea, even though I don't care for his policies).

The fact that this question even arises is a symptom of the undercurrent of misogyny surrounding the way her campaign is being covered, IMHO.

And she's not my candidate by any means.

[WildEyedLiberal]

27. Um, the point is that misogynists DON'T criticize her policies - they criticize her femininity

Did you even read the OP? It's not about "Hillary," although being a woman who happens to be a major contender for president, most of the ready examples of public misogyny revolve around her. The POINT of the OP is that these misogynists AREN'T questioning Clinton's policies, campaign style, or anything of substance. They're critiquing her voice, her physical appearance, her very womanhood, as a roundabout way of minimizing her or making her out to be less than serious. If you can't see the difference, then you're just allowing your blind hatred of her to dismiss this excellent and insightful post, which of course isn't really about Hillary Clinton but rather about the pervasive societal pooh-poohing of any woman who deigns to play on the same field as men.

FTR I agree with you about Clinton. I can't stand her (or Bill either really). But when she gets attacked as a woman, and not as a candidate, you bet I'll defend her.

[Pamela Troy]

37. No.

Why do you ask?

[Marr]

47. Probably because those things are true, but pointing them out to Clinton's fans

often inspires cries of "misogynist".

[Pamela Troy]

50. Specifically which "things"

that I've cited do you consider "true?"

[Marr]

51. The things leftofthedial cited.

[Pamela Troy]

58. Well, that's mighty strange

because I haven't seen anybody here denouncing those criticisms as "misogyny," and nowhere in my piece do I describe them as misogyny.

Do you have a point?

[Marr]

84. I already made it.

I don't think anyone could seriously claim that Hillary supporters haven't accused others of misogyny on these boards for offering legitimate criticism. I had someone suggest I just couldn't support a woman when I complained about her DLC connections, for instance.

And no, I'm not going to track down specific posts for you. I don't care enough to spend a moment digging up proof of the obvious.

There's been some real misogyny on display in the attacks on Clinton. There's also been some false complaints of the same.

[noiretextatique]

88. the it isn't misogyny

and you should call people on it when they do that.

[Pamela Troy]

180. Do you consider me guilty of making "false complaints"

in the examples I cited?

[gollygee]

73. It would only be misogynist if it were accompanied by

calling her a bitch, or saying she cackles, etc.

Saying you don't like her policies is not misogynist.

Perhaps you have a specific example in a thread that we could all look at? Maybe you have a link?

[Djinn]

127. of course not

I do it all the time, I also apply that to Obama and Edwards and pretty much all of them (Kucinich seems ok-ish but as an Australian citizen haven't paid much attention)

I do find it odd though that amongst politically like minded friends (very left wing even in Australian terms - way out on the loony fringe in American terms) Clinton is viewed as more of a hollow corporate shill than Obama/Edwards etc

I see very little difference between them and it does make me wonder what it is about Clinton that pisses people off so much, I wouldn't say it's purely attributable to sexism, a few people I know who I know couldn't care less that she's a woman and still hate her so there's something else, but I think it's certainly part of the reason she gets criticised for views that her opponents share.

[Sam Ervin jret]

148. it's not that she's a woman . It's that she's a woman seeking power.

Check motives and hearts with honesty.

[Djinn]

202. you think only women seeking power

cop this crap?

[grantcart]

16. Based on the title I was expecting some wild rant

Instead I got something I want my daughters to read. My biggest problem with Hillary can be summed up in two words: Rupert Murdoch and all the trialateral strategic bs that that represents. But alot of the criticism is misogynistic and you were kind to limit it to just 3 types.

[iamjoy]

17. Is It Just Language?

I'm female, but I think sometimes language is just habitual.

I think Ann Coulter is an ugly bitch. I think Rush Limbaugh is a stupid asshole.
I guess it would be gender nuetral to think of Ann Coulter as a stupid asshole, but somehow it seems more natural to me to think of her as an ugly bitch. In this case, ugly is not a commentary on her appearance, but her personality and comments she makes. I don't think I'm alone in this, or that Conservatives are the only ones using misogynistic language. Read some of the posts about Ann Coulter on this board sometimes, our fellow DUers have used far stronger insults (referring to her appearance) than "ugly bitch." Others have referred to Limbaugh as "fat" is that wrong even though he is male because it implies that his physical attributes are somehow relevant to the toxic viewpoints he espouses? Some of us call Limbaugh fat but adore Michael Moore. Is there a disconnect?

But anyway, is is sometimes just a habit, that our language has not completely caught up with modern attitudes?

[madamesilverspurs]

26. The only problem

with calling Coulter an "ugly bitch" is that doing so would give ugly bitches a bad name. . .

[iamjoy]

30. Oh, Ha Ha

but that isn't really helpful.

I'm asking a serious question. Do we only become angered by misognynist language when it is used against Democrats and Liberals? Does the language stem from deeply hidden, perhaps subconscious sexism (racism, etc), is it a harmless habit with no malice intended? Or is it something more sinister?

[LostinVA]

39. I don't like Coulter being called that, either

[UncleSepp]

81. Me neither. I dislike what she does and says, but...

... the higher principle here is a deep and genuine respect for people of all genders. Attacking her on her looks implies that a woman has to look a certain way to be heard. Attacking her ideas says that a woman's ideas are important regardless of how she looks. I don't like the insults about Rush Limbaugh being fat any more than I like the insults about Michael Moore being fat. Being fat, skinny, or buff has nothing to do with the validity of a person's ideas.

[blondeatlast]

138. Criticizing her Kyl/Leiberman vote is respectful of the position she's attained,

commenting on her voice or cleavage or suit or makeup is literally demeaning.

You've nailed it, US. Very nice work.

[madamesilverspurs]

70. My bad

for not using the "sarcasm" emoticon. On this end, I've been trying to effect a curbing of the slime-slinging in our local newspaper's online article comments. It appears that much of the sexism or racism (mostly the latter, around here) in many of the remarks is quite conscious and very deliberate -- it's simply a very effective way to draw attention away from the focus of the conversation while repulsing some would-be participants. To be sure, there are those who simply lack the ability to do anything but imitate what they hear on the radio. On a wider scale, there are those who do see beyond race or gender, but seem unable or unwilling to comprehend beyond party lines, and those denigrations, too, serve to diminish the writer/speaker more than their intended targets.

So, I've found myself flamed by both men and women as well as by both Democrats and Republicans, for having had the temerity to suggest civil conversation. Suggesting that people respond more positively to respectful discourse has gotten me booed and hissed. I've been told to grow up by people forty years my junior. I've been told to get a life by people who seem to have never read a book without lots of pictures. But I'm determined to start the occasional civil conversation. It's a beginning, anyway, and it's a whole lot easier than trying to inject civility into a conversation that has no use for it.

[Djinn]

129. there have been several threads

that have pointed out the ignorance of calling Coulter an ugly bitch and calling the Bush twins sluts and a whole bunch of other sexist bullshit thrown by those who think politics is a schoolyard fight and it doesn't matter what policies are enacted as long as "our side" is "winning".

As someone who doesn't view the Democratic Party as "my side" I've posted a couple of threads on that myself.

The language might be "lazy" but whether it's laziness or misogyny we should work to change it and not be tricked into thinking that just because someone votes/campaigns for a candidate from the party with very slightly better progressive records that they can't be sexist, racist twats.

[whopis01]

79. All you need to do is even it up some...

You just need to start thinking of Rush Limbaugh as an ugly bitch as well as being a stupid asshole.

[iamjoy]

106. But It Sounds More Natural The Other

Anyway, when I call Ann Coulter ugly, it is not a commentary on her looks.
There's a woman at work, very nice. And I was thinking she was pretty (aethitically since I'm a hetero female), but also that she looked familiar, reminded me of some one. Then I realized she looked a little like a young Ann Coulter, but her personality was completely different (I don't know her politics). So I knew then that my finding Ann Coulter ugly had nothing to do with physical appearance - it had to do with the toxic garbage she spews.

So, if calling a woman who has differing political views ugly is misogynistic, than that hatred of women is so ingrained in our society as to be habitual and sub-conscious.

[Sam Ervin jret]

149. Just LANGUAGE!! What are we doing here? Words are POWER!!

Don't kid yourself, SIR, or is it madame, or should I call you Dr. or Senator or bitch or bastard, ? Or Should I say how sweet you writing is of how insightful it is? Words HAVE POWER. The MEDIA knows it. The advertising people know it. The politicians know it. Down deep somewhere we all know it. Some of us are just better at using it as a weapon for evil. And some of us are better at using it as a tool for freedom. Some of us can use it to stir the hearts and minds of nations. Some of us can us it to unleash the evil and hate within us all. Only words. i think not.

you are right about the fact that we are all guilty in using the "fat" issue to degrade anyone we do not agree with. And the ugly goes across sexes as well. But to not see the truth in the first post is to be in such a state of denial as to cause me to fear you may be covering some past feeling or behaviors of your own you may not be proud of.

Well join the club. We all need to look at this issue with honest eyes and make assessments with courage.

[Pamela Troy]

181. The language we use reflects our attitudes.

Language is important. Don't ever kid yourself into thinking it isn't.

As for calling Ann Coulter "ugly," while I'd agree that her attitudes are "ugly," she is physically a very beautiful woman and I frankly see no point in liberal men undermining their own credibility by insisting, crossing their hearts, and swearing up and down that they find her appearance repulsive. Surely there are enough bad things to say about Coulter without making stuff up?

Sometimes, after reading the comments here about how physically "ugly" conservative women are are and on Free Republic about how physically "ugly" liberal women are, I fantasize about conducting an experiment. I'd gather all those Freepers and DU'ers who post such nonsense into a room. Then I'd show them a slide-show of various women at various liberal and conservative gatherings, the shots shorn of all reference to politics. Then I'd invite them all to guess about the political allegiance of the woman based on their appearance.

Could be fun.

[Richard Steele]

24. Great synopsis, Pamela Troy! Heartily recommended! nm

[kineneb]

25. Huzzah! And thank you.

I have met all three. I usually give them a piece of my mind and a good glower... works rather effectively, since I am tall. "Nice little lady" never has applied to me.

The grandparents raised me to not accept gender "rules"- Papa taught me how to use power tools at an early age. The goons reluctantly back off when I start talking about woodshop tools... (my mental comment:"I could clean out your ears with a cordless drill, you moron. I have a long 3/8" bit that would do the job nicely. STFU."

[femrap]

28. K and R

I loved this. Will be forwarding to many.

[cali]

29. Brilliant as always. You are hands down the best writer on

DU. Thanks.

[Sugar Smack]

46. So freaking true. So true.

:toast: I think the best of the best.

[Tyler Durden]

32. Where have YOU been?

We need more stuff like this.

Excellent.

[Sugar Smack]

45. Imus simply sucks, too, no?

:D I am so with ya on where has Pamela been.

[Tyler Durden]

105. Imus simply sucks, too, YES!!

I am so tired of all the forms of BIGOTRY we have had to put up with. Hope the future does not think we were complete assholes.

[hfojvt]

33. that was funny and informative

It sorta reminded me of Charlotte Perkins Gilman's three types that she uses in her novel "Herland"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=6776564

Kinda unfortunate though, that it seemed to be all about Hillary. Some of the quotes reminded me of other things I happened to see on TV. For example, Rosie O'Donnell commented to Sean Hannity a couple of times about how good looking he is. Was she being misandrous, or was she trying to make a point? He seemed to take it well. Then there was Kelly Ripa saying to John Kerry "Wow, you are very good looking. Can I say that?" and he smiled and said "I don't mind at all."

I also think your conclusion is wrong. "Shutting women up" is only a goal when they disagree with the person who is trying to shut them up, and that does not seem to be particularly misogynistic. Quite often we want the people who disagree with us to shut up, or at least quit being so doggone disagreeable. I mean O'Reilly does not discriminate on the basis of sex whose mike he will shut off, or who he will tell to 'shut up! shut up! shut up!'

[LostinVA]

36. REALLY good -- send it in as an Op/ED somewhere

[SaveOurDemocracy]

40. Excellent post ... K&R

:kick:

[crispini]

41. well done!

:applause:

[McCamy Taylor]

42. Good one. Don't forget, half of the misogyny directed towards Hillary is made up for political gain

She has been the victim of a corporate media smear which I was calling Hillary is a bitch long before the not so charming woman at John McCain's meeting called her that. The reason is simple. As a professional woman (a physician) I know that the world is unforgiving of women whom it perceives to be unfeeling, uncaring, cold. A male physician can be abrupt, aloof even rude and patients tolerate this. A woman physician who is aloof is a "bitch".

The "Hillary is a bitch" narrative has created lots of trouble between her camp and the Obama camp. Some of his followers are young, independents who are not used to wading through the MSM lies. They read the stories about her "witchiness", they believe them, and then when the MSM claims that Hillary is spreading lies about their candidate (a typical Divide and Conquer ploy) they believe that, too.

We saw this in 1968. It would be so good if there was some way to deliver a crash course in dirty low down politics to all the new people getting involved this year. Though maybe some of them would freak out and quit if they saw how foul it all is.

[Sam Ervin jret]

151. the whole thing reminds me of '68 as well. Let's hope for a better ending for all our sakes.

[Avemedea]

49. best one yet

Kudos, Pam. I want to cross-post this to BlueNC.com.

yer sis,
"AveMedea"

[Sugar Smack]

62. WHOA. Welcome.

:D

[Pamela Troy]

69. Thanks Little Sister!

Good to know you're reading!

[Avemedea]

93. Hold on, sistah

I don't like it when you call me "little sister."

Have you been calling me that all these years? I would like the name and contact information for all those in whose presence you referred to me as "little sister."

(waiting, and fingers drumming)

[Karenina]

100. Na Du...

Welcome to DU! (You'll wait a l-o-n-g time!!! :rofl: )

[Pamela Troy]

182. You mean

instances like me saying to someone, "that's a picture of my little sister and me in our easter dresses" or saying to my husband, "my little sister wants some movie refs" or maybe telling the author of THE PARROTS OF TELEGRAPH HILL "my little sister LOVES parrots. She'll really enjoy this book...?"

Nope. Never.

[Avemedea]

198. Yes, that's what I mean

And I am herewith protesting. I think, what with your having only ONE sister, you could say, "my sister," or, you know, refer to me by my name, but the "little" thing is inapt. Who gave Marilyn Rooney what-for in jr. high? It won't no "little" sisatah. No, nuh-uh, and hell no.

[Pamela Troy]

210. VBG

Good thing I denied it, then!

[Elspeth]

53. Excellent. Pamela Troy

And I'm adding another recommend.

[annabanana]

54. And Thank you, Pamela Troy!

I expect there are a lot of younger women for whom this will be a revelation. The discussions haven't been "had" much lately.

[Danger Mouse]

59. Hillary certainly is bringing the sleaziest of the knuckledraggers out of the woodwork, isn't she?

Beck and Savage are just about the biggest assholes I can imagine in talk radio, and people gobble up the hate they spew like it's candy. It's funny how terrified these morons are of Clinton...she's no liberal or progressive, she's a centrist at best, so their irrational hatred is purely directed at her femininity. Small-minded. Feeble. Pathetic. Sad.
It's also pathetic that some on DU have basically bought into that garbage...
I hate Clinton and her policies, but I despise that sort of behavior from supposed 'progressives' just as much.

[Danger Mouse]

63. Recommended, btw.

[Chovexani]

61. K&R

Hopefully those that need this will not dismiss it out of hand, but I have my doubts. :(

[La Lioness Priyanka]

64. denying sexism and misogyny is blaming the victim.

and great post.

[Akoto]

65. In the context of this message board ...

I think guys "roll their eyes" at the mention of misogyny because it's often misused. I, myself have been called misogynist because I wouldn't damn the porn industry back when we had that flurry of porn posts last year. I'm pretty sure others have been labeled as such for not supporting Clinton's policies, or for being concerned that her gender might be a viability issue during the election (I don't agree, but I can see how others might).

I doubt that the majority of women on this board blindly hurl the word around in that fashion, just as I doubt the majority of men here are misogynists. There are extremes on both ends, and things do get heated, which means both sides can end up on the defensive.

[Blue_Tires]

66. great great stuff

ttt

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. Thank you for not using misogyny and sexism as synonyms.

A pet peeve.

However, you are defending against misogyny by creating misandrist stereotypes. Michael Savage behaves the way he does because he's Michael Savage, not because he is among the subgroup of men whom women are empowered to define as "slobbering yahoos".

Aside from gender, (and the gender of those who create the definition) what is the difference between "slobbering yahoos" and "feminazis"?

It is quite impossible for a man who does not support Hillary to make that case in a way that doesn't result in someone ascribing misogynistic motivations.

It is sexist to mention a womans appearance (for better or worse) yet it's perfectly appropriate (and raises nary an eyebrow) to call Dennis Kucinich an elf.

Can we get back to the the Obama/Hillary blood feud? It's better than the recurring theme of patronizing sexism disguised as defense of the sisterhood.

[donsu]

162. feminazis? could you define that please

nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

187. I'm not interested in creating stereotypes and then populating them.

I'm not a human sorting hat. I'm merely disagreeing with the creation of stereotypes by using the example of a stereotype that we'd all object to.

[Pamela Troy]

209. And yet your response to a message

that was quite explicitly about outrageous examples of misogyny was to cite the stereotype of the unreasonable feminist accusing all and sundry of misogyny. You don't see something a tad inconsistent about this?

[lumberjack_jeff]

215. Hello?

Are you now suggesting that stereotypes are bad things?

[Pamela Troy]

219. No. I'm saying outright

that you are being rather grossly inconsistent. You are ascribing intentions and assumptions to me that I don't hold, and have neither stated nor even hinted at.

You DO understand that pointing out misogynistic comments about Hillary Clinton does not equate to support for Hillary Clinton....right?

[lumberjack_jeff]

221. So stereotypes aren't bad things?

I'm not ascribing intentions at all. I couldn't care less why you feel it appropriate to create stereotypes to make your case. I only care that you have.

And "emoticons" are something one types.

[Pamela Troy]

223. Of course you're ascribing intentions and statement to me.

Did you, or did you not say that you object to me "implicitly if not explicitly arguing that the candidate who is the media/corporate darling and arguably the least progressive of our frontrunners deserves our support because the stereotypes you've developed are all conspiring to defeat her. Appeal to sympathy and victimhood?"

I have not made that argument either implicitly or explicitly.

As for "stereotypes," which my dictionary defines as "a standardized mental picture that is held i common by members of a group and that represents an over-simplified opinion, affective attitude, or uncritical judgement," I consider them something to be avoided.

Now please answer my question. What "large group" do you imagine I am stereotyping?

[lumberjack_jeff]

225. Then clarify. In what sense did you consider your post "timely"? n/t

[Pamela Troy]

226. My post is "timely" because

whether you support Clinton or not (she is, for the record, not my candidate of choice. I prefer Edwards) her candidacy has recently inspired quite of bit of outright misogyny from the likes of Don Imus, Chris Matthews. and others. The recent response to her show of emotion (She's screaming! She's sobbing! She's out of control) made it especially "timely."

Do you understand that pointing this out does NOT translate into automatic support for Clinton as a candidate?

[Pamela Troy]

183. And the way Michael Savage behaves

qualifies him as a "misogynist" of the "slobbering yahoo" variety just as the way David Duke behaves qualifies him as a racist of the "pseudo-respectable" variety. Do you abhor all words used to categorize certain behaviors and belief systems?

Please cite where, in my piece, I equate lack of political support for Hillary Clinton with misogyny. I've been quite specific and taken pains to provide verifiable examples. Are you seriously claiming the examples I cited don't qualify as "misogyny?" What WOULD qualify as misogyny then?

And no, for the record, it's not appropriate to denounce Kucinich or any other candidate based on his appearance. That does not make zeroing in on women's appearance any less a misogynistic tactic. It's not a matter of whether a tactic is used exclusively against women. It's a matter of whether it's used with far greater frequency against women.

Please cite exactly where I've engaged in "patronizing sexism."

[lumberjack_jeff]

188. If it's men creating categories into which to stereotype women, I suspect you'd see the point.

re: patronizing sexism
With only 100 posts there's a limited reservoir of context to pull from, but those who nominated you for a pulitzer surely have used their share of :eyes: among them.

btw, I didn't see anyone object to the observation upthread that it's primarily the "fat uglies" who hate women. No one sees the irony.

Turnabout is often considered fair play, but it is also a revolving door. One must be the change they desire, not its opposite.

... Unless equality isn't really the goal.

[Pamela Troy]

195. You still haven't explained

where, in my piece, I equate lack of political support for Hillary Clinton with misogyny. Surely that's not too difficult a source to draw from?

[lumberjack_jeff]

197. Why are they called straw *men*?

Regardless, I don't respond to them. I never suggested that you attribute Hillary opposition primarily to misogyny. That's why I'm uninterested in answering your question.

What I did say is that it is impossible for a man to explain his opposition to Hillary without someone dismissing this opposition as "fearing strong women".

If you speak plainly, you're a misogynist. If you "lean forward on your knees and explain patiently and quietly" with lots of qualifiers and caveats, then you're patronizing.

Given that Hobson's choice, I'll stick with candor. She should not be our nominee because she's not the right woman at the right time. These times call for more than triangulation, moderation and incrementalism. And yes, there are matters of mannerism and style which are off-putting to the electorate.

It is important to win. Voting for Hillary as President of the United States primarily because some buffoons yelled "wash my shirt!" is stupid.

[Pamela Troy]

208. Well I DO respond to "straw men," which is why I am responding to you.

In my article I made a point of citing blatant examples of misogyny. It was not about men just "speaking plainly" about Hillary Clinton, and I quite explicitly did not equate disagreeing with Clinton with misogyny. Yet you and some other posters here, responded to it as if I had. Your messages are about as blatant an example of setting up a "straw man" as I've seen.

Why are you so intent of dragging what was intended as a discussion of obvious and unmistakable misogyny into a discussion about women making false accusations of misogyny?

[lumberjack_jeff]

214. An honest discussion of misogyny? Fine. I'm all ears.

You, however are using the misogyny of individuals as an excuse to create stereotypes of large groups. I'm no longer ears.

I am not setting up straw men at all. I am objecting to what you ARE doing;
1) creating stereotypes to assign individual misogyny a systematic/inherent basis. This justifies overreacting and creating sweeping generalizations to explain individual boorish behavior. It has as much merit as creating stereotypes of motherhood by watching Brittney Spears.
2) implicitly if not explicitly arguing that the candidate who is the media/corporate darling and arguably the least progressive of our frontrunners deserves our support because the stereotypes you've developed are all conspiring to defeat her. Appeal to sympathy and victimhood.
3) straw man arguments. "You and some other posters here, responded as if I had." I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but if you're going to create a fantasy narrative, leave me out of it. I don't know how many ways I can say what I mean without it being substituted for something I'm not saying.

[Pamela Troy]

218. 1. What "large group" do you feel I'm stereotyping?

2. My article neither implicitly nor explicitly argues that Hillary Clinton deserves our support because she's been the subject of misogynist comment.

3. It is no "fantasy" to observe that some posters here -- including you -- have responded to my article as though it was equating opposition to Hillary with misogyny.

[lumberjack_jeff]

220. In your estimation,

What percentage of the population don't qualify for one of the (by my count, nine) stereotypes you've created? Would you describe those who remain to be a "large group"? If so, you've answered your own question. If not, it seems that you've overstated the problem.

There are, of course, other kinds of misogynists – The Flasher, The Woman Who’s Wunnathaguys, The Expert On Women, The Wounded Little Boy, The Online Troll in Drag, The Self-Appointed Therapist – but these tend to be subsets of the three I’ve described above. And, of course, there’s some overlap. Courtly Gents can become “Honest” Guys and vice versa, and I’ve seen cases where both have devolved into Slobbering Yahoos.

There’s not much a woman can do about these types other than try to avoid being played. Almost all of them are masks some men – and even some women – put on when they don’t want to actually listen to a woman. No, merely disagreeing with a woman and saying so does not make someone a misogynist, but when one of these masks turns up in an argument, any smart woman will take note of it. They are often invoked by someone who’s losing a debate and is hoping to get a woman to shut up and back away.

Shutting women up, is, after all, really what it’s all about.

Did you really type this with a straight face? Your writing wasn't intended to do exactly what you're accusing those with whom you disagree of doing?

[Pamela Troy]

222. I have no idea "what percentage of the population"

engages in the kind of theater I describe in my piece. I do make it quite clear early on that I don't consider it to be a "majority."

Now please answer my question. What "large group" do you imagine it is I am stereotyping?

[lumberjack_jeff]

224. "In short, many of the men out there – not all, but many..."

"will respond to female complaints about sexism as they would to a group of not very bright twelve-year-old girls."

and now:

"I do make it quite clear early on that I don't consider it to be a "majority."

Quite clear? Hardly. Either you are being deliberately obtuse, or you need to proofread that which is ghost written for you more carefully.

So, to directly answer your direct question unambiguously. I "imagine" that you are stereotyping "many of the men out there – not all, but many".

Please don't further insult either of our intelligences by responding with another non sequitur or straw man.

[Pamela Troy]

227. So now you're fixating on the word "many?"

Sorry, but using the very useful word "many" does not qualify as "stereotyping." Saying, for instance, "many women enjoy reading romance novels" does not qualify as stereotyping. You enter the realm of stereotyping if you simply assume that because a given individual is a woman, she likes to read romance novels.

And yes, many men do respond to women in the manner I described. I had absolutely no trouble finding examples. (Do you have a problem with any of the cites I offered? Do you feel they don't actually qualify as misogyny?) It's a pity, but it's a fact. This doesn't mean that all or the majority of men are misogynists -- another point I take pains to include when I write:

" This is not to say that every accusation of racism or sexism is warranted, or that every person who argues with such accusations is a racist or a sexist. It is to say that all too often, the response to complaints about 'racism' or 'sexism' is based, not on the facts presented or the arguments offered, but on the race or gender of the accuser... And yes guys, I know, not all men are misogynists – not by a long shot. But enough of you are to warrant this guide."

What's interesting about this thread is the number of guys, both here and on other blog, who have managed to bolster my point even as they fondly imagine they are refuting it. They hyperbolize my original argument entirely out of recognition. They ascribe to me -- as you did -- intentions and statements I neither made nor even hinted at. They insist on dragging the conversation about misogyny in the media into a conversation about unfair accusations of misogyny by women, while showing a marked unwillingness to address the examples I cited. If any male posters here feel those examples are unfair, they are being awfully mum on that point.

It's interesting to note that so far in this thread, I've not come across many messages from women indicating that they will vote for Hillary because she's the target of misogynistic crap in the media. In fact, I haven't seen any, though I have seen messages from women saying they DON'T support her, but do see the misogyny I describe. There may be a few "VOTE FOR HILLARY BECAUSE SHE'S A VICTIM" posts that I've overlooked, buried in the over 200 messages here or in the other places I've posted this online, but they seem to be a pretty insignificant group, and outnumbered by posters intent on denouncing me for things I neither said nor believe.

[lumberjack_jeff]

228. If you can't see the difference between;

"many women read romance novels" (as evidenced by the sales of books) from "many women read romance novels - because they hate real men" (based on ones own gut feel) then I'll never be able to explain to you the difference between demographics and stereotyping. Your apparent misconception (based on the example that you've chosen) is that a stereotype is okay so long as it doesn't include all men, or all women. In other words, "feminazi" (like "slobbering yahoos") is okay, provided one uses the disclaimer; "but I know lots of women, and not all of 'em are feminazis - many, but not all".

Jiminy Christmas. One last time; I'm not "addressing the examples" of misogyny you've provided. I'm objecting to the stereotypes you've developed to explain them and as a canvas for the broad brush you are wielding.

"but they seem to be a pretty insignificant group, and outnumbered by posters intent on denouncing me for things I neither said nor believe."

I'm reasonably good at counting, and I appear to be the only one willing to take you to task for painting a bullseye on the foreheads of "not all men - but many". I'm quite confident that I don't outnumber the posters here who explicitly claim to support Hillary as a response to the misogyny they perceive in the world.

[Pamela Troy]

232. I see some difference between saying "Many men are misogynists"

and saying "Many men are misogynists because they are afraid of women," but neither statements really qualify as "stereotypes." In my piece I offer some educated guesses about what prompts some men to, for instance, suddenly denounce women they are arguing with as fat or ugly, or what prompts some men to offer unsolicited and inappropriate compliments about a woman's appearance, but I'm not in the business of psychoanalyzing men who engage in misogyny and that is not what my piece was about. My article is strictly about the various bits of theater some misogynists engage in so they can avoid actually coming to grips with what a woman is saying.

Saying that many women read romance novels "because they hate real men" can come close to being a stereotype if you fail to offer anything to back up such an assertion. (Saying simply "women who read romance novels hate real men," IS a stereotype.) For the record, it's quite possible that many women who read romance novels do so because they don't like men in the flesh and an interesting piece could be written on the subject -- so long as you provided verifiable quotes from female romance fans expressing hatred for men.

Do point out "the posters in this thread "who explicitly claim to support HIllary as a response to the misogyny they perceive in the world." I have not found a single one, though I have found numerous comments from people who DON'T support Clinton as a candidate but feel she has been the target of misogyny.

[gollygee]

72. That is BRILLIANT. K&R.

Of course, we don't have any of those folks here, right? LOL

[MedleyMisty]

74. Based on some of the responses to this thread

can I add another category? Something about a man who calls sexism against males when misogyny is pointed out, because you know we keep them down and don't let them into positions of power and force them to stay home and take care of the kids and rape them and beat them and belittle them constantly based on their gender and stuff.

[lumberjack_jeff]

76. Of course. The dictionary still has plenty of perjorative terms.

And the human capacity to stereotype is limitless.

[Pamela Troy]

77. As the tendency of some people

to stereotype ANY use of the word "misogynist" as unfair, no matter how blatant the misogyny is that inspires it.'

[Sparkly]

108. Yes

I think there's a familiar strawman there -- the accusation that someone objecting to misogyny is simply taking legitimate criticism and "playing the gender card," in fact taking EVERY criticism and claiming it's sexist!

Btw, another common line I've heard from courtly gents is "I LOVE women! I just love 'em! I, personally, believe all women are beautiful! I love 'em all!" In my experience, it's been the worst offenders who feel a need to emphasize it like that, and they grin as if it were so big and magnanimous of them to tolerate and love such quirky, silly beings. Can't STAND that!!!

[donsu]

163. sometimes "playing the gender card" is needed, demanded.

you know, stand up and throw that card down - wake everybody up - get some reality going.

[lumberjack_jeff]

191. It is right to point out and defend against misogyny.

What is inappropriate is to try turn the behavior of an individual into a literal stereotype - a demographic profile of others.

It is appropriate to point that out and defend against it, too.

I avoid stereotyping other men, and I sure as heck wouldn't presume to categorize women.

On your topic "throwing the gender card down (to) wake everybody up", do you think that using it to send a message or raise awareness is worth the risk of desensitizing people to real misogyny?

[Djinn]

130. particularly

when they add perfectly reasonable examples of the misuse of misogyny (not having a censorial view of pornography or legit political criticism of Clinton) in response to what is demonstrably attacks on Clinton's appearance or "style", in what comes across as attempt to muddy the waters.

Just because it isn't racist to say that Colin Powell lied to the UN that doesn't mean there's no racism or we should ignore it

Just because it isn't misogyny to call Clinton on her Iraq vote/corporate BS doesn't mean there's no real misogyny

Fake gold exists but when I'm talking about buying some jewellery I don't preface every bloody conversation with "not all jewellery is real gold" It's just not neccesary

[Bunny]

75. Fantastic! Brava!

:applause:

[UncleSepp]

78. Keep these coming, please! Great stuff!

I was laughing my ass off at the Courtly Gent one. I could see the face of one specific, irritating example of the Courtly Gent who insisted on peppering a political conversation with "miss", "my dear", and other totally irrelevant gender references clearly intended to assume a patronizing tone. This guy, once called on it, turned into the Slobbering Yahoo.

I'd offer up as another marker for the Slobbering Yahoo that a woman he can't otherwise justify not wanting to sleep with who doesn't want to sleep with him must, of course, be a gold-digger not satisfied by his wallet or a lesbian. If she's not into him, it isn't ever his fault for being an asshole.

I wonder often why it is that so many straight men seem to genuinely hate women, and how it is that their expressions of that hate are so contradictory. Women who enjoy hair, clothes, and makeup or going to the gym are shallow and vain. Women who don't are fat ugly slobs. Women who are higher paid than the confused straight guy in question are bitches who probably slept their way to the top. Women who earn less than he does are money grubbing whores. Women who don't want sex are frigid cockteases. Women who do are sluts. The Madonna/Whore complex seems inadequate to explain or even describe the mental map of these woman-hating straight guys. It makes me wonder if, at some level, they resent being sexually attracted to women.

[lukasahero]

92. Wow - talk about a superb sub-post that should be recommended all on it's own

Thanks for that third paragraph UncleSepp. What an incredible summation!

(Oh and yeah, I'm totally wowed by the OP too!)

[Karenina]

96. Now THAT was a SLAM DUNK!!!

And I would say yes, some do resent the little head's power over the one on their shoulders. See: Burkha.

[BrklynLiberal]

102. I would join in recommending that subpost as well....

[potone]

154. Yes, they do resent it.

Sexuality involves vulnerability and the risk of rejection. This seems to be compounded in our culture by the American myth of rugged individualism, particularly as it relates to the settlement of the western United States. That mythology largely ignores the role of women in the settlement of the west in favor of the rugged male pioneer or cowboy who is utterly self-sufficient. For men who, usually unconsciously, equate strength and independence with self-sufficiency, their attraction to and need for women makes them feel vulnerable and less than manly. Hence they turn their resentment against women.

[UncleSepp]

203. Rejection - I think you're onto it right there

I think the rejection straight men feel seems so painful because of the diminished identity straight men have. They've been reduced to the contents of their underwear. A straight man's emotions, sense of aesthetics, likes and dislikes, everything about him is constantly held up to the Are You Manly test. The heterosexual relationship has diminished as well - a man is suspected of not being Manly Man if he appreciates his partner's traditionally feminine characteristics or her traditionally masculine ones. He can't celebrate that she knows how to make their house look like grownups live in it instead of frat boys, lest he be suspected of being feminine himself. He can't appreciate her ability to fix the car or frame a wall, either, lest he be suspected of being attracted to her masculinity and "really wanting" a man. He can't even show his love through listening to what her real desires and expectations are and fulfilling those desires and expectations, lest he be branded submissive or "pussywhipped". Only the desire to have sex with women is completely safe. It's the only completely safe way he has of accepting her and offering himself.

I think that's also why straight men focus so much on what they think will satisfy women sexually, but often miss the mark by not focusing on what will sexually satisfy the particular woman they are with. They don't know how to ask, or even if they're allowed to.

Media images don't help. The simple, dumbed down stereotypes of men, women, and relationships used to sell products - and really, all programming of all advertising-funded media are there to sell products - help shape men and women into simple, dumbed down demographic groups for easy marketing. Whether it's the thirty-second spot of the incompetent dad who has to order pizza to feed his family because he can't figure out how to cook dinner, or the TV drama featuring a professional woman whose career success naturally means she's lonely and miserable, the images all reinforce and are reinforced by popular culture. I don't think the change is caused by the media images, but I do think that the mirror of the marketing media has set up a dangerous feedback loop.

[potone]

206. Thank you for your reply.

Media images certainly do not help, and feminists have been complaining about them for years. What makes everything worse is the fact that stereotyped gender roles are inculcated at such a young age. The last time I was at a Toys 'R Us store I was appalled at the blatant sexism of the toys--girls' toys included make-up kits, jewelry kits, and dolls, as well as a board game about shopping malls, while boys' toys were mostly armaments imitating real weapons of warfare. I pity parents of young children who have to try to counter-act the implicit messages these toys convey about masculinity and femininity. I could go on about this forever, so I will stop now. But I do appreciate your thoughts on this issue--most men I know prefer not to discuss gender stereotypes.

[UncleSepp]

211. Toy stores are hell.

They're just beginning to sell gender neutral kitchen sets. Imagine, all the stars of the Food Network, and nobody's capitalized on it by making something like an Emeril Legassi kitchen playset? It's not only a bad idea not to from a perspective of gender stereotyping, it's a missed opportunity. The dressup kits for the girls and boys in the toy stores still don't have soldiers in the girl section. With mothers and sisters being deployed right now, with women being ordinary soldiers, good, bad, and ugly, you'd think the people who plan out the stores would wonder if the daughters and little sisters might not want their own uniform. And how exactly do you get the little boys to learn the habits of taking care of their own homes when the only toy vacuum cleaners are pink with flowers? How do you get a little girl prepared to take care of their own yards and gardens when a toy lawnmower is in the "boy" section? Heaven forbid you've got a kid who isn't gender normal, and who might like to just play racecars or ponies without having to question gender to do so.

As far as I can see, the toy stores aren't any less of a hell now than they were in the early 70's. For me, it was a horrible experience going into a toy store. When I took my nephew as an adult, I expected it to be different, but it was just as I remembered. Stupid.

The little kid clothes are terrible, too. Not even getting into the mini-thug and mini-ho stuff, little girl clothes aren't made to play in, and little boy clothes aren't made to be cozy. Just try finding a pair of fuzzy toe socks that aren't candy-pink and clearly girly, or a pair of boots for a girl that could handle kicking rocks and climbing trees! Even the little toddlers, what do they get as the message? You sit there and look pretty, and you, run around and play, but don't ever get comfortable. :-(

Edited to add stuff: I've been on both sides of the gender role problem, and that gives me an unusual (but not unique) insight.

[donsu]

164. I finally came to the conclusion that many men like to f....k women but

they really don't like women. or rather they assume women are 'less' then them.

(actually we are 'more')

[me b zola]

172. Also recommending your sub-post

:thumbsup:

[blondeatlast]

82. Brava! Excellent. K&R! nt

[Darth_Kitten]

85. this is great!!! more! more!!!!

:D

[kikiek]

90. Excellent article. My gut wretches and my anger rises. They underestimate our power.

[Triana]

97. I think they know our power - that's why the attempts to control and maintain power over..

...women by defining them, then denigrating and condescending to them based on the male definitions. It happens to men too though - look what they're doing to John Edwards - negatively defining or ignoring him. Why? Because IF HE'S HEARD, he will have a lot of power and support. And the "powers-that-be" don't want that to happen!

When they want to keep you DOWN and OUT, that's what they do. It's all about power and control.

Of course it happens to women MUCH more often than men but it does happen to men, too.

[kikiek]

98. I agree. They want the money. The billions of dollars it will bring them.

[noiretextatique]

95. the false equater

1. to regard, treat, or represent as equivalent

discussing misogyny = misandry
writing about misogyny = man-hater
mentioning the word misogyny = stereotyping
rape = false accusations of rape

this type tends to be remarkably consistent.

[salin]

137. That is one of the most common type encountered here...

imo.

[blondeatlast]

144. So very true--and so very common.

:thumbsup:

[UncleSepp]

213. No rejection of the core thesis of a war between the sexes

I think that's why discussing misogyny seems to equal misandry to the false equater. Men and women are "opposite" sexes engaged in perpetual conflict to them. Anything that's pro-woman is anti-man in that zero sum game. Everybody on one side versus everybody on the other doesn't leave any room for some of one "side" to be different from others on the same "side", or even for the listener to be different from some or all of the others on their "side". They have internalized the battle of the sexes so deeply that anything that's pro-woman is anti-them personally for a male listener, or anything that's pro-man is anti-them personally for a female listener. What's needed is to reject the war entirely, and all its us and them categorizations and generalizations.

Sex is a biological characteristic of an individual body. Gender is both a social, cultural construct and a property of mind. They are part of what makes an individual who they are, but only a part. We're not a bunch of walking bathroom signs, we're people, three-dimensional and whole, no two alike.

[FloridaJudy]

99. Excellent! K&R n/t

[Hidden Stillness]

101. Then There is the Type That "Refuses to Judge"--Themselves

Another type you sometimes find, is the fake "sympathetic Peacemaker" or "fair-minded person who will not judge," but only when it benefits males. They generally don't notice the importance of "keeping an open mind" and "not judging" until it comes to excusing male violence or discrimination. They want all rapists to be given the benefit of the doubt, the benefit of all possible alternative explanations however absurd, "innocent until proven guilty" even after proven guilty, "let's not rush to judgement" as they claim all rape charges are fake, etc. They keep up this attitude of refusal to form an opinion against a rapist, woman-beater, or like crime, because they do not care, and because they trivialize it. They are not against it, and they are angry that anyone is.

They sometimes build up an elaborate defense of not condemning male violence, and call it "trying to understand what might have caused it," like it is tricky, and not the male's choosing. Sometimes they are "so sophisticated," and will not condemn "the poor guy," but want to "understand," "unlike the vindictive 'bitch' who brought the lawsuit," for example. They do not want pesky old "judgmental laws" at all, but only a pseudo-medical psychobabble excuse for the behavior. They know just scads and scads of examples of males supposedly battered by women, and when you try to return it to the topic or mention that the crime statistics do not support the claim, then they can now launch into the "part 2," "getting vicious" part of the attack, where you are an "abuse-enabler," just like that. You have not been "sympathetic" to the fake subject-diversion, so all bets are off.

Any reference to the real-world battering, rape and other violence against women is treated as if you are "selfish" by referring to them, and not the males who are being ignored for two seconds thereby. They post "Fuck the Dead, Missing White 'Bitch' " type threads, complaining that a woman who was raped, murdered, buried, and who is now covered as a media news story, is still getting too much favorable attention to suit them--she is actually still privileged to this type of woman-hater, who can't stand any sympathy directed toward women. Their minds, and their sympathies, are always with the male.

[Danger Mouse]

109. I just get annoyed when these stories dominate the media

and detract from what I wish the media would pay more attention to.
I have zero sympathy for the scumbags who hurt these women. Absolutely fucking none. Violence of any sort against women, but especially rape, turns my stomach...some people very close to me were subjected to that torment.
However, I know what it is to face the 'guilty until proven innocent' mentality when dating a particularly vicious woman who, trying to hurt me in any way she could, chose the easiest and most effective route.

[PeaceNikki]

103. .

:applause:

[Sparkly]

104. Wooo HOOO!!!

Thank you for this!!! :applause:

Brilliant!!

[Der Blaue Engel]

110. And then there's my favorite: The "Wounded"

I've run into quite a number of them online (probably because it's easier to pretend to be wounded when no one can see you). Once they start to lose an argument, or are called on a misogynistic remark, they express shock and outrage that you have said something "deeply hurtful" and demand to know just what you could possibly have found offensive in what they said (even though you've just told them, and they've just repeated the insult in the same sentence).

I find this behavior doubly insulting because it assumes that a woman will instantly feel guilty for having "wronged" this "innocent" because they believe it's in a woman's nature to not only be a mommy to every man-boy, but to fall for any appeal to emotionalism and dissolve into tears themselves for having been so "mean."

Right-wing trolls often employ a variant of The Wounded regardless of the gender of their opponent, based on the belief that a (bleeding-heart) liberal is the "weaker sex" of politics.

Edited to add: Great post! :thumbsup:

[mojowork_n]

111. OK, I have "Y" chromosomes (my DNA's full of 'em)...Can I just ask a question?

Could you please add a fourth category of male chimpanzee?

My Mea Culpa:

You know that Hillary clip they've been re-playing all over the cable news channels. I've seen it now, I don't know how many times.

Standing up in the plane, doing the flight attendant schtick.

I had trouble watching it all the way through the first time.

I think one or two of the following phrases, "phony, squared", "quadraphonic, 3-D, trans-dimensional phony", "concentrate on the words, dammit, what's she trying to say?"; "this must be an appeal to that choir, the older woman voters", and "damn, why does she always light up my B.S. alert button?" ...may have crossed my mind.

True confession:

The reaction was several orders of magnitude reduced -- almost comfortably scaled back -- from the visceral, teeth-gnashing agony I feel watching The Chimp's televised attempts at humor, or for that matter, Glenn Beck's or Chris Matthews'.

Can you give me a better grasp of my own specific strain of pathology?

{Edited addition-- Oops, forgot to introduce myself. My name's Mike.}

[LulaMay]

112. They Do the Hoky Poky...And That's What it's All About!!! (Shhuuut Up!) :)

Yes....it's all about shutting us up.

Thank you. Spot on and amusing.

[Vektor]

115. Nail on the head, m'lady.

Amazingly accurate and well-spoken observations.

So very true.

[Matariki]

117. Excellent writing. Entertaining, and more importantly, spot on.

a hearty recommendation!

[motocicleta]

118. Beautiful

I relish the thought of further installments delineating the other categories; the titles have me intrigued.

K n R

[Djinn]

121. K & R

I detest Clinton, wouldn't vote for her in a million years but both the criticism and the praise she gets is revolting in it's patronising misogyny.

:applause:

[Hekate]

123. Good job.

:toast:

Hekate

[hunter]

128. K & R

:kick:

[Prophet 451]

131. So, where's the line?

I'm a guy. Having watched the stuff being said about HRC, I have to wonder where the line is. Some of it, yes, is blatantly sexist and there's no excuse for that but I've also seen the misogyny accusation levelled at anyone who simply doesn't care for HRC, no matter what the reasons were. It's frustrating for two reasons: Firstly, it's just as easy to accuse someone criticising Obama or even Condi Rice of doing so just because they're black; secondly, it makes dealing with actual sexism much more difficult when the charge is thrown even at legitimate questioning.

Incidently, about Michael Savage: I am quite certain Savage is misplacing his rage at his inability to acknowledge his own sexuality at the gender he feels he should be attracted to but isn't. If/when he manages to come to terms with his sexuality, I fully expect him to do a David Brock-esque reversal and become a tolerable human being.

[Pamela Troy]

185. SOME of it was blatantly sexist?

Which part was not?

[Prophet 451]

189. of criticism of Clinton?

Well, questioning her record, actions and whether her rhetoric matches up with the actions (which, in fairness, it mainly does) strikes me as non-sexist. We'd do the same (or should do the same) for any male politician too.

[Pamela Troy]

194. And where in my piece

did I cite simply "questioning her record, actions and whether her rhetoric matches up with the actions" as examples of misogyny?

[Prophet 451]

196. I wasn't talking about your piece

I was questioning whether it's possible to criticise a female candidate without being accused of sexism.

[Pamela Troy]

205. And how is that question germane to what I wrote?

[OneBlueSky]

133. personally, I'd love to see a woman become president . . .

I just don't think that woman should be Hillary Clinton . . .

[Marie26]

135. Wow, great post!

:applause:

[greiner3]

141. I agree about the republican leaning men hating women;

It's part of the 'might is right' attitude in this society. However, with Hillary a large part of the right's hatred is that she married into the Clinton mystique. I haven't figured it out past that though.

[Jamastiene]

145. I'm in awe here.

I bow to you. :thumbsup:

[MountainLaurel]

150. Bravo!

:applause:

"Shutting women up, is, after all, really what it’s all about."

You've hit the nail on the head.

[Echo In Light]

152. I commented the other day how misogyny is the root of homophobia

In that, what haters and homophobes actually hate about gay men is their feminine traits: don't be such a GIRL about it! This speaks volumes about the prevailing Cult of Machismo...and, as other thinkers have pointed out, mirrors our own govt.

Within that, the real trouble is how there are misogynistic tendencies, messages and flourishes so deeply ingrained in our Corporate Culture, woven into the fabric of the culture, that it largely goes unacknowledged for it actually is within the daily round of life for the average person. This speaks directly to the reactionary "eye-rolls and resigned sighs" Pamela alludes to, and is really no different than the typical reaction one gets upon discussing other ugly, conspiratorial aspects of our chosen/created "reality" that people are likewise encouraged to adamantly deny.

An example of this is the cultural reversion to stereotypical gender roles that I've noticed over the past several years:

Males = shaved heads, big and stupid trucks, inordinate enthusiasm over watching steroid laden goons toss and chase balls. Belligerence and ignorance are valued as "strength," while the rest of the spectrum of human emotions are deemed "weak." Might = right. Slavishly abides superficiality and stereotypes while simultaneously denying the stereotype exists.

Females = Girls Gone Wild slut costumes, claiming "relationship authority" based only on gender/cultural propaganda and convenient, self serving myths that do not translate into actual choices/actions. Inordinate enthusiasm for public displays of porn-induced titillation/pseudo lesbianism. Belligerence and ignorance are again valued as "strength," especially in terms of sexual attraction. And the rest of the spectrum of human emotions, the ones deemed "weak" by their male counterparts, are likewise denied even though relied upon for situational convenience/scape-goating. Slavishly abides superficiality and stereotypes while simultaneously denying the stereotype exists.

What else would one expect to find within a phony, illusory "democracy?"

Now, these outlines may indeed sound quite harsh and one sided...yet if one really examines their social environment, numerous examples are easily identified on a daily basis. I chalk a lot of this up to decades worth of mixed messages from the Corporate Culture which shapes and impacts the collective consciousness/public mind from cradle to grave. It's a system whereby individuality is lost, muted, and the intrinsic worth of human life is instead relegated to that of subjects of "fashionable consumption," where people are instructed on what and how to think, what and who to "love" and "hate," and so on...yet this existential dilemma occurs within such a densely propagandized social climate that its effects are largely unacknowledged. It offers the illusion of choice, so that the person existing within this climate, over time, perceives their choices/actions as being free from any external source of coercion.

[donsu]

165. kick

nt

[UncleSepp]

212. Even the gay and lesbian community buys into it

You've got to be a top or a bottom, or if you're neither, you get labeled a switch. It's not allowable to reject that simplistic identification entirely. You've got to be a butch or a femme. If you want to just be a man who loves men, or a woman who loves women, you're the one who's confused!

I think you're dead on with this:

It offers the illusion of choice, so that the person existing within this climate, over time, perceives their choices/actions as being free from any external source of coercion.

The illusion of choice is key. Top down, single source propaganda won't work for people who pride themselves on democracy and freedom. The propaganda has gone viral, has been viral for some time. The targets of the propaganda became the source of the propaganda, owning it and perpetuating it as if it were their own thoughts. I wonder often what kind of counterpropaganda could defeat it. What do you think?

[0007]

153. Pan BOY and her two for a nickle and one for a dime bullshit

that little girls love to eat up up

Very long walk on a short pier

[Echo In Light]

155. Donnie Darko is a remarkable film

[The Doctor.]

156. So is everyone who makes inference to gender while criticizing a mysandrist/mysogynist?

Where's the line?

If you call Bush a dickhead, are you a misandrist?
Saying a woman is comely makes me a misogynist?

Granted, Glen Beck, Don Imus, and Chris Matthews are pretty fucking stupid when it comes to, well... anything, but you seem to be saying that what people say makes them sexist rather than what they believe. Sure, someone who feels women are inferior WILL say stupid sexist shit, but just because someone makes gender distinctions does not make them guilty of sexism.

[Echo In Light]

157. It's tricky. As George Carlin insists, "language gives you away."

Being born and raised in this climate though, we're all hypocritical in some ways, taking a little here, more or less, and leaving a little there...

The key is to question everything.

[The Doctor.]

201. Agreed. It's a touchy bit.

Love your user name.

[Pamela Troy]

186. What is it you found unclear about the examples I offered?

Which ones did you find baffling?

No, calling Bush a "dickhead" does not make you a misandrist, unless you constantly bring up the fact that he has a dick in lieu of more substantive criticism.

No, saying a woman is comely does not automatically make you a misogynist. Repeatedly bringing up women's "comely" appearance when you are supposed to be speaking as professionals or while discussing political issues does raise the suspicion, however.

What people say generally reflects what they believe. Sorry, but words like "racist" or "misogynist" or for that matter, "Communist," "Nazi," "conservative" or "liberal" were not coined on the assumption that they would only be used by psychics. For all I know, Michael Moore might, in spite of all he writes, films and says, be a flaming right-winger fooling us all. The likelihood, however, is so remote it's not going to stop me, or any other rational person, referring to him as a liberal.

What would have to happen before you would be willing to refer to someone as a "misogynist?"

[The Doctor.]

200. Baffling? Not at all.

I just caution against branding without more substantive justification than "he said her looks didn't hurt her ratings".

Consistent use of gender referencing, especially in the negative, and stereotyping should set criteria for such judgement. I didn't disagree with you, I just missed any notion in your post that people should be given the BOTD until they've proven time and again.

Could be my bad, I'll read it again after I post. It was so very well written you pretty much set your own bar high, and allegations of those sorts should not be made without deliberation.

Interesting, I went to school with a 'Pamela Troy'. That your R/N?

[Pamela Troy]

207. Chris Matthews' constant harping on the appearance of his

women guests is pretty well documented.

I grew up in Louisiana and attended University in both Louisiana and North Carolina.

[The Doctor.]

216. Oh, I completely agree. He's a complete pervert.

Massachusettes myself.

Thanks for the great piece BTW.

[Evergreen Emerald]

158. Best. Post. Ever!

Thanks

[mmonk]

159. Opposing Clinton due to reasons attributable to misogyny and attributing all

opposition of men to Clinton being due to misogyny are both simplistic views.

[NaturalHigh]

168. Undoubtedly, but that's the view that many take around here.

There are so many reasons to dislike Mrs. Clinton, but to some, if you're not a cheerleader for HRC, you're a knuckle-dragging misogynist.

[mmonk]

169. I think it has to do with emotional attachment one experiences

with their candidate. To me, both views have the same root, a society with antiquated gender views but still pretends to have moved past it.

[blondeatlast]

160. Criticizing HRC's Kyl/Lieberman vote is respectful to her and the position she's attained.

Criticizing her voice or clothes or hairstyle, etc. is demeaning to her personally and to her position.

It's really that simple.

Your post is wise and wonderful, btw.

[Stuckinthebush]

161. Oh my god. Did you really write this stuff?

It is perfect!

Thank you. Oh, and you are correct, not all males are misogynists. Many of us here at DU are constantly amazed at out male and female friends who refuse to see it.

[Caoimhe]

167. Wow! So true!

I also wish I could recommend more than once. I wasn't sure what I was getting into when I started reading it, but by the end I was practically standing in my chair! Great piece and so thoughtfully written. I hope you are published, or will be someday!

[Droopy]

170. Great post. I've been all varieties at some point in my life I'm sure.

For me, I think the misogyny was rooted in my inability to attain a woman which led to so much anger, frustration, and desperation, which, of course, only exasperated the problem. Most people who know me here seem to think I'm a nice guy and I like to believe that is the case now days. But I know I wasn't always like that. I was also severely mentally during my woman hating days and I probably would have learned my lessons a lot quicker if that hadn't been the case. Thankfully, I didn't hurt anyone during that period of my life. Aside from their feelings, that is, and I truly regret that.

Anyway, here's to therapy! :toast: K & R.

[MedleyMisty]

176. Thank you for your honesty and self-knowledge

It's very refreshing.

I was talking to my husband last night, and there is a basic difference in how the genders communicate. Like he thinks that when I go to him with a problem that I expect him to solve it but all I want is for him to listen to me and acknowledge my thoughts and emotions and validate them.

Like how when I got upset that I didn't have enough free time to write a book, he felt that he couldn't solve the problem for me and I guess that injured his idea of his manhood or something and he turned it around and projected it and got mad at me for having the problem. But he's cool so he got over that after a while and listened to me.

Is it possible that some guys do the same thing when we bring up sexism? Like they think that if we bring it up we want them to personally solve it and they can't so they get mad at us for bringing it up and say that it's sexism against them to try and protect their idea of their masculinity?

[Droopy]

177. You're welcome

I think that some men don't understand what sexism is and when they hear a woman speak about it they think that she's just whining and making shit up which the clueless man doesn't understand is a sexist reaction on his part. It's the men who don't understand that sexism is real who are the most sexist. Those men have the sense that men are naturally superior to women and that's the way god or nature intended it. I don't know if they have any concept of sexism.

As far as fixing things goes, I'm not sure. Maybe it goes to the heart of what men perceive as their role as protector. I know I still have that primitive feeling when, say, I see my brother-in-law and sister arguing. Whether than let her sort it out with him I'd like to knock his block off. :) Maybe the answer to your question lies somewhere in that, but I don't really know.

[me b zola]

173. K&R!

:applause:

[peacetheonlyway]

174. GUYS Hate women that succeed and women that have personal power

and your post is both eloquent and instructive.

I just quit Microsoft this week to go to any other company. It's a company that has hired in general a bunch of emasculated game playing men into management positions when they can't manage.

I left an engineering group where my business skills exceeded many layers higher than I was reporting to and that made them nervous. I negotiated a $28M dollar software deal down to several millions by all procurement standards a 'kick ass deal' and not a single acknowledgement by the boys this was a good thing.

good riddance.

the only way we women start to erase a misogynist society, one that surrounds us everywhere is to STOP WORKING for the men who hate us.

i myself intend to run for office and boot up my startup and leave the misogynists at microsoft to spend money on data centers and trying to catch up to google (good luck!) and years from now, the frustrated microsoft employees with a clue will be working for me....

[DURHAM D]

175. Great post -

Another R for you.

:pals:

[klook]

184. I'm a man who loves women like you.

This is one of the best posts I've ever read on DU, and should be required reading for everyone. Thanks so much for writing it and posting it here.

This reminds me to continually challenge myself to treat women as real equals. This requires overcoming the conditioning that we're all subjected to, in varying degrees and qualities. The mental and emotional discipline required to do this pays off huge dividends: a world in which we're all appreciated and judged based on our merits and the content of our character, our speech, and actions.

I disrespect Ann Coulter, for example, because she has proven time and again to be a shallow, destructive liar, not because she's skinny or supposedly has a big Adam's apple.

I respect Naomi Klein, for example, because is an insightful and courageous writer and speaker, not because of (or in spite of) the way she looks or sounds.

Unfortunately, misogyny abounds in our society, and it will take a lot of work before it subsides into its rightful place on the ash-heap of history.

By the way, I do not support Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, because I disagree with her on some key policy positions. But if she's the Democratic nominee, I will support her against any Republican.

[ismnotwasm]

217. Wonderful

Beautifully written.

[Patiod]

229. Not a Hillary fan, but MSM misogyny is working FOR her

at least with me, and it looks like I'm not alone.

[MrScorpio]

231. BRAVO!

And, if I've never said it before. I'll say it now... Welcome to DU!