He wouldn’t harm a fly
Oh, look, it’s “Jessica” Yaniv getting handsy again.
Caution in case you’re at work: there’s a lot of “fuck” and “fucking.”
Tip Jar
Oh, look, it’s “Jessica” Yaniv getting handsy again.
Caution in case you’re at work: there’s a lot of “fuck” and “fucking.”
Where’d the scooter go?
Please let the footage from the overhead security cameras be made public. Let all see what type of man is demanding to be allowed access to little girls in our spaces.
“Get away from me!” said while pursuing the guy with the camera.
Most unladylike.
Yeah, I ALWAYS yell “Get away from me” while advancing on people. I find it works.
TRA cultists: verbally expressing the wrong opinion regarding sex and gender is literal violence.
Also TRA cultists: we’re allowed to assault people.
Holms, you think you’ve pointed out a contradiction, but you’ve really exposed the dark heart at the core of the rhetoric. “We get to physically assault people with nail-bedecked brickbats *because* expressing wrongthink on sex and gender (even, or especially, if that wrongthink was mandatory recitation last year/month/week but has since become enxpressly forbidden) is literal violence.”
There is no contradiction once you have admitted the premise; indeed, the only ethical thing to do in that light is to cheer the transgressive trans people’s ability to defend themselves.
@Holms
But Holms, it’s not violence when they do it. Why? Um, because *mutter* structural oppression *blather* power *babble* intersectionality *gibber* it’s not my job to educate … Shut the fuck up, TERF!
I was listening to a podcast a while back in which a man was talking about the extreme ‘psychological damage’ women do to men, without even realising it, by criticising or mocking them. It was kind of interesting–this guy, surprisingly (he’s a psychologist) seemed utterly unselfaware of how he sounded, telling us that women’s verbal cruelty is so deeply painful to men in ways women don’t appreciate. And, um, men’s actual literal physical cruelty to women doesn’t even get a mention I guess. But it did make me realise that I expect for a lot of men this deep hurt they feel when a woman doesn’t treat them the way they want to be treated is a genuinely legitimate reason to attack women physically in response.
@guest:
Well, without diminishing the pervasive harm that is done to women by men, it is also important to recognize that misogynistic patriarchy (MP) does have negative repercussions for men, too. MP idealizes a masculine that comprises possession of women and sexual conquest. The male conception of the self under MP depends on certain faculties and competencies, which might be called “machismo” in Central & South American cultures. Self-worth depends on viewing the self as having “machismo”, and it depends on others’ viewing one has embodying the same. This is, in fact, a significant driving force in the disparity in homophobia between male/male and female/female relationships. The former is met with much more disgust, as it is an affront to masculine worth under MP.
It is entirely possible that this effect is underappreciated. In my own conversations with people unfamiliar with real feminism, I am often met with surprise when I say that misogynistic patriarchy hurts everyone, both women and men. It’s a thing I saw Jane Clare Jones trying to explain, and it’s hard even for someone like her, someone deeply fluent with the topic, to get across to someone whose only exposure to feminist thought is 3rd/4th wave nonsense.
I wouldn’t argue that the hurt isn’t real…I guess I just think maybe family annihilation is possibly a disproportionate response.
Why do men in especially “macho” cultures have more antipathy toward gay men? If I weren’t already familiar with this, I might have thought that being around “unmanly” men would make you appear more manly in comparison. If I want to look tall, I’m not going to hang around with NBA players.
But you repeat yourself.
@YNnB:
Not strictly speaking. One can have hierarchy not rooted in dominance, necessitating that we use the phrase “dominance hierarchy” for clarity. Similarly, one can (in principle) have patriarchy not rooted inmisogyny, matriarchy not rooted in misandry, geriarchy not rooted in misepheby/ephebiphobia, ephebiarchy not rooted in misogerony/gerontophobia, and so forth and so on.
The practicality of achieving and sustaining these conjunctions in the really real world is another matter, of course.
@guest: Yes, obviously.
@Ben: I imagine it’s similar to the religious animus toward skeptics and apostates. Tolerating the unbeliever or the skeptic is tantamount to condoning them. To tolerate the skeptic can be seen as evidence personal fault, of insufficient faith. The religious mind is trained to be distrustful of and even repulsed or disgusted by the the unbeliever. But note that the heathen is less reviled than the apostate.
One could argue that this maps rather well to gender and gender non-conformity. And just as with the heathen-apostate dichotomy, there is a difference between gender non-conformity in males and females.
Keanne Bexte is a piece of far right wing work himself, as a perusal of his Twitter shows. Reminds me of what was said about the Iran-Iraq war: You wished that both the Saddam regime and the Ayatollahs could lose. Maybe he and “Ms”. Yaniv deserve each other.
Sorry, I don’t see this. Would not any form of governance that institutionalizes the superiority of a particular group for the mere posession of a characteristic (in this case, being a male) that is completely unrelated to the fitness to lead entail the enforced subordination of those lacking the arbitrary characteristic, despite posession of actual talent and ability to lead? It’s been argued that patriarchy is somehow “natural.” Yet there’s plenty of evidence (plenty presented on this very blog) that it takes a lot of concerted effort and systematic oppression to keep that “natural” order of things propped up. Without misogyny, how does one prevent “non-patriarchs” from a share of power at all levels of society? How does that happen without force and coercion? How does that happen without the denigration, belittlement and dismissal of women’s talents and abilities? I don’t think “separate but equal” is going to work.
#7
Yeah true, this is after all the “reasoning” that led PZ to endorse violence up to and including murder against the right while declaring it self defence.
Well, just as a matter of pedantry, patriarchy in this case is not a form of governance but instead any hierarchy in which males are occupy the superior position and females the inferior. This can occur naturally due to structural pressures. For instance, absent sex divisions, males will be the elite class in nearly every physical sport.
Now, is it possible to have a non-misogynistic patriarchal government? I don’t know. Essentially all that is necessary is that (i) society implements a non-misogynistic response to a pressure either internal or external, (ii) that response leads males and females to have divergent life experience, (iii) that divergence manifests in a tendency for males being on average more successful candidates/politicians. The key is that (i) doesn’t have to be linked to (ii) in an immediately obvious, a priori way.
Obviously, I don’t think that causal chain is evident in reality, but it isn’t inconceivable. You could probably come up with a sci-fi or fantasy scenario that would generate it.
You can find lots of religious defenses of patriarchy that claim to be not at all misogynist oh no no not at all. It’s the separate but equal thing. Women are for the Home and Children, and of course that’s not misogyny, it’s very loving. Leaf through some quiverfull propaganda, or FLDS ditto, or papal ditto.