HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » Men's Group (Group) » A rather typical example ...

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 08:23 PM

A rather typical example of the double standard

This was in reference to Mitt Romney's latest "gaffe" in Israel.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=15307

The "Israel speech" is the easiest fucking thing for an American politician. Promise more money, promise more weapons, and then slap your cock across an Arab's face.

I wonder if the poster thinks it would be acceptable to talk about how when Condoleeza Rice was Secretary of State, she "smothered foreign leaders by covering their faces with her vagina"?

Isn't it time for them to see that the spewing of hate talk involving penises is a form of rhetorical violence that only further damages things? The above statement is offensive on more than a few levels.

21 replies, 4571 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply A rather typical example of the double standard (Original post)
Bonobo Jul 2012 OP
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #1
Bonobo Jul 2012 #2
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #3
MadrasT Jul 2012 #5
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #6
MadrasT Jul 2012 #7
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #9
MadrasT Jul 2012 #10
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #11
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2012 #15
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #16
hifiguy Aug 2012 #17
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #19
MadrasT Aug 2012 #18
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #20
hifiguy Aug 2012 #21
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #4
MadrasT Jul 2012 #8
caseymoz Jul 2012 #12
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #13
caseymoz Jul 2012 #14

Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 12:57 AM

1. I found that post pretty damn hard to believe.

I think it wouldn't fly anywhere on the site except maybe I/P, or the Gungeon.

People seem to be able to get away with all kinds of stuff in those places. It's always been that way, to some extent.

Anyway, B. I'm personally fine with this thread being and staying here, but it's really more of a meta question IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:19 AM

2. Well it is Meta, but it also a Men's issue.

The reason I didn't want to post in Meta is because I already know what would happen and I am not seeking that kind of response.

I think her post about "slapping a person across the face with his cock" shows a couple of things worthy of discussion.

One, it shows the negative associations that some people feel free to throw around about "men" and "penises". What she meant to say is that penises are weapons that angry men use in the act of doing nasty bad things.

Two, it points out that the word "cock" in this context is okay whereas we cannot use the wordy "pussy" or, more similarly, "cunt" without creating a frenzy.

It reminds me of how some women like to talk about "testosterone poisoning" or say that a person has "too much testosterone" as a way of criticizing them. In this context, "testosterone" is shorthand for violence and all the bad things that men represent in their minds.

So, all in all, I think it was a very telling post from that person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 03:32 AM

3. I blame Nightmare Moon.

No, seriously. I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MadrasT (Reply #5)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 06:27 PM

6. Interesting post.

Since you've brought it into our group, I assume you want it looked at.

"hers was a criticism of the patriarchal view of sexual intercourse"


Okay, so, let's have a look at Dworkin's "criticism" of the same, shall we?

"Romantic love, in pornography as in life, is the mythic celebration of female negation. For a woman, love is defined as her willingness to submit to her own annihilation. The proof of love is that she is willing to be destroyed by the one whom she loves, for his sake. For the woman, love is always self-sacrifice, the sacrifice of identity, will, and bodily integrity, in order to fulfill and redeem the masculinity of her lover."

"Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women"

"For men I suspect that this transformation begins in the place they most dread -- that is, in a limp penis. I think that men will have to give up their precious erections and begin to make love as women do together."



Anyone want to come out of the woodwork to defend those specific quotes?

I'll wait.

More, from Scootaloo:

"Basically the whole idea that Dworkin was crazy"


Except, she WAS crazy. She hallucinated being pursued by giant invisible penises across Europe, in the years before she died. Even her most ardent supporters realized that she had finally come completely unglued, unlike her prior partial unglued-ness that caused her to say shit like penetrative intercourse is "immune to reform".


Scootaloo has obviously, deliberately and blatantly misrepresented the record on Andrea Dworkin.

I leave it to the reader to decide if Scootaloo is misrepresenting anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #6)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 04:06 PM

7. Actually

I was just providing evidence that Scootaloo is not a "she". (The subject line starts "Well, as a male...".) Gender misassignment bugs me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #7)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 04:11 PM

9. Ah.

Could have been achieved without the link to the defense of Dworkin's sanity, right?

Doesnt exactly count as a point in scootaloo's credibility column, now, does it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #9)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 05:03 PM

10. Scootaloo's credibility or lack thereof is not my job.

If I cared, perhaps I would have searched for a different post that established that. (I know how y'all feel about Dworkin, geez, I didn't show up on DU yesterday.)

Just correcting gender misassignment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #10)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 05:07 PM

11. Off the subject, do you think the "brony" phenomenon is for real?

Or do you think it's an elaborate internet put-on?

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/06/bronies-my-little-ponys/


I think its an elaborate internet put-on, myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #11)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:53 PM

15. Maybe it is

But we here in the men's group should be supportive of any fellow guy who wants to be one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #15)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 11:07 PM

16. I am completely supportive of any guy who wants to be one. Don't get me wrong.

I'm just trying to figure out if it's an Andy Kaufmanesque postmodern put-on, or for real.

(I am also supportive of any guy who wants to do an Andy Kaufmanesque postmodern put-on thing)

I'm an old school Gen X straight up sarcasm-and-irony type. I'm like the Onion. When I'm kidding, you know I'm kidding.

I fully admit I can't figure out this Millennial pretend-but-then-also-genuine earnestness thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #11)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 10:59 AM

17. An old friend of mine, who happens to be a fine cartoonist,

 

is a brony. He even did the artwork for the nametags and autograph cards at the recent Bronycon (or whatever the blue hell it was called) in NYC a few weeks ago.

While fixing one of my computers he showed me an episode of the show. Speaking as a lifelong fan of animation, I have to say it was quite cute and very well done. It's real. My friend said there were over 4,000 people at the convention. Harmless enough in the grand scheme of things, methinks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #17)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 02:31 PM

19. Absolutely. And people like what they like, which is cool.

I just thought maybe there was some meta-joke that I was too old or out of touch to get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #11)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 02:25 PM

18. I don't know.

But it sure makes me want to watch and see what all the fuss is about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #18)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 02:32 PM

20. Know what?

Me, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #18)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 02:37 PM

21. If you ever found the Powerpuff Girls entertaining

 

which I certainly did (the "Meet the Beat-Alls" episode was one of the cleverest cartoons this side of Warner Bros. in their heyday) you will find MLPFIM at least tolerable. It was developed by Lauren Faust, who was a writer and storyboard artist for PPG and is married to PPG creator Craig McCracken.

The animation is very nice indeed. It's a little cutesy, but not nauseatingly so, and it has its sly and hip moments as well.

Yes, I am a cartoon/animation geek.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 12:09 PM

4. Very typical double standard.

 

Men and women are perfectly equal . . . except when men are worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 04:09 PM

8. OK since I stepped in to this sideways...

...I'll just add that I agree with your observation here.

It does only further damage things, and I don't like this kind of speech either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 06:09 PM

12. I believe they're not quite comparable.


The penis and vagina function differently in sex, leading to different analogies and symbols. To say something similar about Condolezza Rice, I'm afraid you'd have to say she slapped her strap-on across Arab leader's faces.

However, whether referring to vagina or penis, they're both already equally offensive and unwelcomed in polite, serious conversations and formal writing. There are people who would reject a post like this and never answer or recommend it. I don't know what else you can want, here.

Yes, if he had used a vagina analogy, women, and a few men, would have complained. However, it seems men don't complain as much when their genitals are used for such references. Why? Any guess I make will sound like a joke.

Nevertheless, you can either take poster's point as communicated, or divert the conversation to the way he chose to communicate it. Penises just don't distract me enough to hassle about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #12)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 06:26 PM

13. Or, you can disagree with the point AND suggest there are probably better ways to communicate it.

Remember, the poster is suggesting that, in this order, President Obama AND two politicians (who happen to be Jewish, but that's a coincidence. I'm sure.) are engaged in the conduct- metaphorically "only", of course- described in the post.

The fact is, that sort of statement wouldn't fly in most corners of this site, on most topics. I think another double standard is that some people think they can get away with all sorts of OTT rhetoric when the subject is I/P, or, say, guns.

That's been pretty clear, lately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #13)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 08:28 PM

14. Well, then communication distracts from the point


In my experience, the poster will then get frustrated and say that your point about the words he chose is irrelevant to the point of his statement, and the point you then made about his statement is ignored. By choosing his mode of communications at all, you've probably sacrifice your chance to make any point about his message.

That, btw, is a recap of what happened when I chose to do both.

Yes, it's offensive in the way you describe as well, something I didn't notice at first. However, one thing about resorting to crass, vulgar analogies in casual discussion is, you're often numb to the collateral insults you could be making.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread