Again though how prevalent is this? It would make sense though if boys were concurrently taught that they were inferior, they're not, and nor are they encouraged to think of themselves as inferior.
It's my experience that this rhyme is told to both boys and girls concurrently. Your experience may be different.
Actually all of these are examples of misogyny, it's presumed that women are passive sexual partners who couldn't possibly take initiative to even cheat, because only men are presumed to be sexually irresponsible and promiscuous naturally.
Silly me. My read of popular opinion was that cheating is considered bad, a flaw, dishonest. You're presenting it as positive empowerment.
It's presumed that all women are communicative because women aren't viewed as active, it's even presumed that women are relationship architects who cannot be insensitive or lack emotional skills. Because woman=emotional and irrational and passive and man=rational and unemotional and active.
Codswallop. The active/inactive you've attached inversely to communication skills is fabrication. The development of communication has been theorized to be tied with practice of hunting because it required a precise coordination of effort unlike gathering which probably didn't entail much chasing of fleeing berries.
It's presumed that women are naturally better at rearing children because woman=mother.
Agreed on the assumption.
Men are given the grace of the presumption that they may not be perfect parents but women are not, they are forced to live with the responsibility of being an indifferent parent as a deep and personal failure as a woman.
Grace?! Is that what we're calling it, now? A man's ability to rear a healthy and happy child being discounted is considered giving him the grace to be an imperfect parent? Wow.
So when two divorcing parents seek custody of their child and it's awarded to the mother you consider this to be a misogynist punishment for the mother who is now under an unrealistic burden? I find that a very bizarre interpretation.
They're not, they're examples of misogyny in a social system which makes absurdly broad and reductive presumptions about women a priori and then makes secondary presumptions about men in a dualistic way.
I think you're applying a ridiculous amount of spin. If you're interpretation of misogyny spans from hatred expressed in insults to hatred expressed through over idealization then there isn't anything you can't see as misogyny if you spin your way 'round to it.
Finding someone contemptible is perfectly normal, what indicates misogyny in this case is the mode in which that contempt is expressed.
If I find an individual black person contemptible and then express that contempt by using racist cliches then my comments to them are racist even if my initial contempt had nothing to do with their race.
So...
I express repeatedly that my preference is for honeyed-cinnamon skin tones and then later find myself in disagreement on a completely unrelated topic with someone whose skin is close to obsidian. That person who already knows what my preferences are asks point blank if their skin is too dark for me and I answer "yes"... This makes me a racist?
Direct question, direct answer, neither tied to the issue being discussed.
I looked at it very closely, and the bolded portion of what you're saying is correct, however in my opinion his defence of himself became an excuse for him to infuse his arguments with sly undertones of misogyny thereafter in my opinion. I'm surprised that your close reading didn't indicate that to you. MR was being personal in making the argument about her weight, but she did so to try to express broader ideas about misogyny, taking that cue he used the cover of discussing broader ideas through MR's arguments to express personal contempt of a misogynistic nature. There was a general undertone of old grudges to the discussion but that changed very little from an outside perspective.
If you're looking for examples of misogyny and this being a thread devoted to the topic I don't doubt you are, you're certain to see it even when it's not there.
The old grudge was brought very clearly into it. Firstly, MR adresses hud01, not the other way around. Secondly she initiates the discussion of his opinion of her body type completely off topic to this thread.
Are you saying that you read the thread objectively? And what do you expect I will discover if I re-read the thread in whatever manner you suggest?
I had hoped you would discover that at no point does hud01 attempt to tie MR's weight or body type to the validity of her thoughts on misogyny, hence not making his answer to her question a misogynistic tactic. In fact I had hoped that with a second and detached reading you would see that the only person to attach the body type issue to the other person's ability to make a valid point happened here.
I've seen your posts in the Would you have sex with a fat woman thread and i've seen your reaction to anyone talking about me in the Thin Women with Big Tits thread. I think you of all people probably don't have an unbiased opinion. I'll use YOUR words when i say: Back on topic.....
Because he prefers thin women he's biased on what misogyny is? Who is undermining who(m)?
I don't recall reading where he says she's too anything to have valid thoughts on misogyny but you've repeatedly said he's insulted her weight to undermine her points. He mentions her size ONCE in response to a direct question with no reference to anything else and you've labeled him a misogynist for it.
Absolute bullshit.
Now who's indulging in hyperbole? You know full well that's not what I said or even implied.[/QUOTE]Please reread from the start of that exchange and show me where he uses her appearance to undermine her position on this thread. I think you've made a completely unfair accusation based on a coloured reading.
