--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > And they aren't death threats legally speaking, > > but that isn't the point either. They don't have > > to be to stand as examples of intense misogyny. > > I think they express hatred towards two individuals. I > don't buy your move to try to generalize it as against > all women.
Right, the "Some of my best friends are women" defense. It doesn't have to be against *all* women to be misogny. Or rather, it can be held in check as long as the women one encounters behave "appropriately." When they don't--when they express disagreement and vigorously stand up for themselves and for other women--all of a sudden the underlying misogyny rises to the surface, and the women who are behaving "inappropriately" are criticized in terms that apply specifically to women, including criticism that involves threats of physical punishment. If it were only raunchydog and me, that would be one thing. But it's not; it's Hillary and Palin and Cindy McCain and Jackie Kennedy and a whole bunch of women who have posted to this forum who didn't behave "appropriately" as far as Barry was concerned. You guys are > running a version of radical old school feminism that I rarely > encounter in women these days. You need to get out more. If it's "old school," it's currently undergoing a major revival because of two prominent women who have been behaving "inappropriately" by fancying themselves to be credible presidential timber and drawing the kind of reaction I described above. And you are conflating the concepts of > misogyny and sexist language which is bogus and hurts your > cause. No, it's not bogus. Sexist language is just the milder end of a continuum. > You are both dishing out and taking some heat for it. Nobody here was "dishing it out" gratuitously, Curtis. We've been "dishing it out" in response to actual demonstrations of misogyny, initially against Hillary, then against female *supporters* of Hillary who dared to call attention to those demonstrations, and subsequently against Palin. What we're taking heat for is pointing out and criticizing real-life expressions of misogyny. When you equate > our words with actual violence against women Nobody's been doing that either, Curtis. We're pointing out that words reflect thoughts, and thoughts can and do generate action. Both words and actual physical violence against women are functions of misogynistic thinking. The words of a given misogynist may not ever rise to the level of physical violence, but they reinforce misogynistic thinking among those who are capable of such violence and thus enhance the chances that it will take place. <snip> > > If you don't believe they express the wish-- > > perhaps subconscious--on Barry's part that > > raunchydog and I die violently, preferably by > > his hand, you're painfully naive about how the > > human mind works. > > Both you and Raunchy MAKE Turq's day as far as I can see. > He is obviously enjoying responding to you both in an > intense way. I think he would be greatly disappointed if > you both stopped posting let alone died in a burst of > feminist flame. Above you acknowledge that Barry's death threats "express hatred towards two individuals." Now you seem to be saying Barry enjoys hating us and would be disappointed if we were no longer around to be the targets of his hatred and the focus of his violent fantasies. Such a deeply spiritual guy, that Barry. I'm sure he'll appreciate your encomium.
