--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > "Your violent metaphor is offensive. For a man it is the > > equivalent to having something inserted into your body > > and damaging an internal organ."--Curtis Delta Blues > > > > I can hardly wait to see you explain how that comment > > doesn't link things people say here with actual physical > > violence. I'm sure you'll find a way. > > I would also be offended if someone threatened anyone here with > knocking their teeth out.
Let's just restore what you said that I was responding to: "My complaint is not that you get offended and express that opinion Judy. It is that you are trying to link things people say here with actual physical violence." So with regard to this specifically, you took offense off the table and instead were complaining about my "trying to link things people say here with actual physical violence." But earlier in the post you linked what *I* said with actual physical violence. You didn't just *link* it, you said it was "equivalent." Which is exactly what you've been complaining that I've been doing. (And my comment wasn't even a threat, you pantywaist. I said it was what I *had done* and made a point of reassuring you that it was only metaphorical.) <snip> > You saying you kicked me in the nuts does not make it more > likely that some other person will actually do it. That is > the substance of your claim. Of course it doesn't. That kind of language isn't a problem *for men*. What do you think is the proportion of men who've been kicked in the nuts by women versus the number of women who've been raped, or just smacked around, by men? You completely ignored my other post in which I explained to you how language *does* lead to violence against women, BTW. > My do-over section to earn the right to hear Judy's comments IF I am > thoughtful enough and she is satisfied with my work: > > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > The guys you are dogging out all have > > > > > loving relationships with the women in their lives > > > > > > > > Whether it's even the case that all the men on this > > > > forum *have* women in their lives, the fact is that a > > > > large percentage of men who abuse women would smugly > > > > declare they had "loving relationships" with those > > > > women. > > I was thinking mostly about Dr. Pete and Turq who seem to be > in your and Raunchy's crosshairs lately. Those were the guys > you were dogging out. Both of them have posted enough about > the women in their lives to make me believe they have good > relationships with women. YMMV Now deal with the second part of what I wrote there, Curtis. > > > > and you ought to > > > > > trust your sisters on the ground about these men. > > > > > > > > I don't believe we've heard from your girlfriend > > > > lately, or any of the wives or girlfriends (or even > > > > the one-night stands) of the men on this forum. What > > > > "sisters on the ground" are there for us to "trust" > > > > with regard to the behavior of the men on FFL? > > Right, you can't interview the women in our lives. My case for > trust may be too weak to be worth much as proof. It's not a matter of what your "case for trust" is worth as proof. It's that your invocation of it makes no sense, since we have no access to the "sisters on the ground" in question. We do have access to other such sisters, however, and they have a whole lot to say about the effects of misogyny on their lives. I believe you > have devolved into a gotcha game with words and I was shifting > the focus back to our real lives where, at least in my case, I > am not viewed as a woman-hater which is your most common charge. I don't think you're a woman-hater. I think you're insensitive to what women have to deal with, and reminding you of it seems to provoke a strong defensive reaction on your part. I don't see any > evidence that Turq or Dr. Pete hate women, I see precisely > the opposite and I'll bet the women in their lives would > agree with me. And I'll bet most of the women in their lives, if they were shown the kind of thing the two of them post here, would be shocked and upset by it (if they hadn't experienced it themselves directly). > Can I prove it to you? Not so much. The fact that you > attempt to put us on the defensive as if we need to prove > this to you is part of your assumption power game. WAAAAAAAIT A MINNIT. *You* were the one who started in about how *we* should trust our "sisters on the ground." I never said a word about your needing to prove anything; you came up with idea yourself. > > > > We see how the men here treat *us*. And we see how > > > > our "sisters on the ground" are treated in the > > > > quotes raunchydog posted. We see how Hillary and > > > > Sarah Palin and Cindy McCain and Jackie Kennedy > > > > have been treated here. > > Jackie Kennedy is dead. She is not being "treated" anyway. > You are being offended on behalf of her memory which is > totally weird. Missing the point. This is about Barry, not Jackie. Maybe you also missed what Barry said about her-- that she was "one amazingly dumb woman" who had "not a glimmer of higher intelligence functions." He was astonished that JFK would have "settled for someone that stupid" and suggested it was because she "wasn't smart enough to figure out that he was fooling around." All that is, of course, totally absurd. Jackie is universally acknowledged to have been an extremely intelligent, highly educated woman, quite possibly smarter than JFK. (And she almost certainly knew he was fooling around; she just never talked about it one way or the other.) So why did Barry go off on her? I'd suggest it was because he felt like dumping on a prominent woman. Oh, in a second post he said she had "never even heard of the concept of women's liberation." Well, duh, at the time she was first lady nobody else had either. The movement only really started in 1963 with the publication of Betty Friedan's "Feminine Mystique" (other than what had been achieved in the late 19th and early 20th century, of course, which by then was taken for granted). The point is that his nasty remarks about her had zero to do with historical reality; they were utterly gratuitous. > Sarah and Hillary are public figures who have asked for any > opinions about them that people want to share by taking that > role. No, they really haven't asked for opinions that they're "dumb cunts" or "stupid bimbos." > Again, you are being offended on behalf of other people > who don't need your help. No. What raunchydog and I are both pointing out (along with a lot of other women, BTW) is that Hillary's candidacy has brought misogyny out of the closet on the *left* side of the political spectrum (it never really went into the closet on the right), and that as far as the left (at least the Obamazoid left) is concerned, it's perfectly acceptable. Misogyny, it may surprise you to learn, is *bad for women* in any number of practical ways, from physical abuse to legal rulings about equal wages and whether pharmacists can refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions, and everything in between. Misogyny puts women at a serious disadvantage in life, and there are very few who have not been negatively affected by it. Racism certainly hasn't disappeared, but generally speaking, it's no longer acceptable. Misogyny is still acceptable, as it turns out, and it's just as harmful to women as racism has been to blacks. > Cindy McCain was overtaken by a chill when Obama didn't vote > for Iraq war funding for her son without a time table but was > warmed up when her husband did the exact same thing the next > month because it contained a timetable. She is not an actual > person but was constructed as an audio animatronic figure by > the Disney group for the Republican party. She has not human > feelings and does not care what humanoids say about her. I don't have any problem with this criticism. Can you guess why? > As far as how you and Raunchy are being "treated." I can > only speak for myself. And the same applies to your black acquaintances who experience racism, right? You treat them just fine, so it's not a problem as far as you're concerned. No reason for you to get upset if one of them has racial epithets hurled at them as they walk down the street, right?
