huh?
When Alfi tries to be funny it always falls flat.
If he wasn't trying to be funny then he was just being his usual misogynist self by flinging unnecessary insults around.
This is the third time you've called me a misogynist.
Care to back it up or shall you be known as the lying, whiny bitch that you are?
You don't want to get on my perm radar...
Evidently the glare of our dimness is not so low as to not be able to recognize that Wanker is one of the most sexist, woman hating cretins on the site.
You two really are dim..you know that, right?
Evidently the glare of our dimness is not so low as to not be able to recognize that Wanker is one of the most sexist, woman hating cretins on the site.
Funny, I've never noticed that.
I have noticed your inherent hatred of women, though.
Interesting that you take exception to him.
So the context here is that when [MENTION=23424]syrenn[/MENTION] asked me if I wanted to participate and help out for Breast Cancer Awareness month I decided that I this was a worthy cause and that I would contribute. Switching over to pink avatars and pos repping everyone who did was all part of the fun. As Halloween approached the theme of the avatars began to change so I looked for one that would include the BCA theme of pink and boobs and I opted for my current Elvira avatar. I continued posting giving it no more thought than I had to the similar themed avatars that I had used earlier.
Then I came across this thread by [MENTION=12394]PoliticalChic[/MENTION] and opted to participate with a response.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/320446-democrats-folding.html
My post elicited a response from [MENTION=30955]Rottweiler[/MENTION] which resulted in a number of other posts from each of us. At first I ignored the lame insults as is my wont because most posters will drop them if I don't respond in kind. However the tone rang a bell with something that my daughter had mentioned to me about "mansplaining" and so I did a little research and this sure looks like it to me;
http://www.usmessageboard.com/8049507-post188.html
The woman who says that I'm not "capable of comprehending" what it means to be part of a "civilized society" because I won't allow her to steal from me wants to talk about irony now....
Sweetie, what is more uncivilized than people stealing and acting like thugs? You have no right to what I have. None. You have no moral grounds to it. No legal grounds to it. No constitutional grounds to it. No religious grounds to it.
You want to bring back slavery and have me labor on your behalf because you can't afford something you want or need. Sorry, it's not happening. Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans outlawed slavery in the 1860's after we won the Civil War. And you Dumbocrats have been trying to bring slavery back ever since. You lost the Civil War. Get over it already. And learn to take care of yourself like a big girl.
The thread has many more such posts and they are nowhere near as "polite" but it the sheer condescending BS that needs to be called out here. It literally opened my eyes to the fact that women have had to put up with this kind offensive attitude from room temperature jerks like [MENTION=30955]Rottweiler[/MENTION] for their entire lives. Yes, I can understand why he mistook me for being female but his lowbrow puerile responses were both unprovoked and sexist.
Ladies, I admire your restraint at not kneeing runt of the cognitive litter needle dicks like [MENTION=30955]Rottweiler[/MENTION] in the groin at every opportunity because they thoroughly deserve it. But this is the internet and you can only do so virtually. So I have started this thread for the purpose of identifying and calling out "mansplaining" and misogyny in these threads.
From a male perspective we can choose whether we want to be associated with the likes of the knuckle draggers or be real men and stand up for women by calling out this abominable behavior whenever we see it. If you supported BCA then let's also support making this forum a better place for all of us to share our opinions without resorting to the lowest common denominator.
Otherwise, when I use the terms it is intended to be a term of genuine affection and I would like to think it is taken that way.
I was out of internet range when this thread was created, so I am coming to the party late. So I hope everybody will forgive me if I address the OP specifically.
So Derideo_Te. . . .
Disclaimer at this point because Derideo_Te is one of my favorite people at USMB
. . . .so Derideo_Te, let me see if I understand. Are you objecting the response that included an objection to welfare using the most common USMB method of uncomplimentary or insulting ad hominem referece to do it?. . . .or. . . .
. . .are you objecting to his inference that you are a woman and used the term 'sweetie'?
If the former, then that is a different subject than "Mansplaining" and Misogyny!" If the latter, it is a fascinating topic. To me anyway.
Any of you who have ever interacted with me know I, a product of the Texas south, use the terms "darlin'', 'sweetie', "dear' etc. as effortlessly as breathing both to women and men. And nothing other than good will is intended by it. So far nobody has objected either, though if any of you have found that offensive in rep PMs etc., tell me and I won't do it.
And when I use the terms somewhat sarcastically in thread posts, they ARE intended to be mildly sarcastic, and I rather think it is obvious they are intended to be sarcastic and I don't blame a member for returning that in kind.
But then I am the queen of anti-political correctness too. And I think all this figures into that somewhere.
I was out of internet range when this thread was created, so I am coming to the party late. So I hope everybody will forgive me if I address the OP specifically.
So Derideo_Te. . . .
Disclaimer at this point because Derideo_Te is one of my favorite people at USMB
. . . .so Derideo_Te, let me see if I understand. Are you objecting the response that included an objection to welfare using the most common USMB method of uncomplimentary or insulting ad hominem referece to do it?. . . .or. . . .
. . .are you objecting to his inference that you are a woman and used the term 'sweetie'?
If the former, then that is a different subject than "Mansplaining" and Misogyny!" If the latter, it is a fascinating topic. To me anyway.
Any of you who have ever interacted with me know I, a product of the Texas south, use the terms "darlin'', 'sweetie', "dear' etc. as effortlessly as breathing both to women and men. And nothing other than good will is intended by it. So far nobody has objected either, though if any of you have found that offensive in rep PMs etc., tell me and I won't do it.
And when I use the terms somewhat sarcastically in thread posts, they ARE intended to be mildly sarcastic, and I rather think it is obvious they are intended to be sarcastic and I don't blame a member for returning that in kind.
But then I am the queen of anti-political correctness too. And I think all this figures into that somewhere.
Being called "sweetie" or "fool" (far more frequently) or any of the other terms in common usage in this forum is not the subject of this OP, Foxy. I fully appreciate the use of these terms and in the case of the negatives I take no umbrage because it serves no purpose.
I also did not take offense at being misidentified as female because I was using an Elvira avatar at the time. Such a mistake by itself was understandable and I would have ignored it or corrected it if the need arose.
What caused me to start this thread was because Rottweiler was feebly attempting to claim "superiority" based upon his belief that I was female. The post that I provided was mild. He became ever more condescending and insulting. It was at that point that the lightbulb went off and I made the connection to what my daughter had called "mansplaining". I did some research and these posts fit the description.
Again I might have left it at that but I made the connection between being treated as inferior because one is born female and being treated as inferior because one is born of a different race. In essence this was the worst kind of bigotry and women have been tolerating it for eons. But that is not an excuse to allow it to continue so I felt the need to call it out for what it was. Hence the OP.
And I am glad that I did because it is an issue that needs to be addressed. Perhaps not as urgent as others but we are all adults and capable of multitasking. The responses have been primarily positive with only a notable few exceptions. The misogynists don't understand what they are doing is wrong and that is more a matter of their inability to understand what it might be like to be someone else's shoes, or heels, as the case may be here.
Hopefully I have managed to explain this satisfactorily but if I haven't please feel free to take me task. And yes, the same disclaimer applies in that Foxy is one of favorites too.
Thanks DT. I appreciate your expanded explanation because I think we spend way too much time at USMB arguing or railing against stuff that another member never said and never intended.
I was out of internet range when this thread was created, so I am coming to the party late. So I hope everybody will forgive me if I address the OP specifically.
So Derideo_Te. . . .
Disclaimer at this point because Derideo_Te is one of my favorite people at USMB
. . . .so Derideo_Te, let me see if I understand. Are you objecting the response that included an objection to welfare using the most common USMB method of uncomplimentary or insulting ad hominem referece to do it?. . . .or. . . .
. . .are you objecting to his inference that you are a woman and used the term 'sweetie'?
If the former, then that is a different subject than "Mansplaining" and Misogyny!" If the latter, it is a fascinating topic. To me anyway.
Any of you who have ever interacted with me know I, a product of the Texas south, use the terms "darlin'', 'sweetie', "dear' etc. as effortlessly as breathing both to women and men. And nothing other than good will is intended by it. So far nobody has objected either, though if any of you have found that offensive in rep PMs etc., tell me and I won't do it.
And when I use the terms somewhat sarcastically in thread posts, they ARE intended to be mildly sarcastic, and I rather think it is obvious they are intended to be sarcastic and I don't blame a member for returning that in kind.
But then I am the queen of anti-political correctness too. And I think all this figures into that somewhere.
Being called "sweetie" or "fool" (far more frequently) or any of the other terms in common usage in this forum is not the subject of this OP, Foxy. I fully appreciate the use of these terms and in the case of the negatives I take no umbrage because it serves no purpose.
I also did not take offense at being misidentified as female because I was using an Elvira avatar at the time. Such a mistake by itself was understandable and I would have ignored it or corrected it if the need arose.
What caused me to start this thread was because Rottweiler was feebly attempting to claim "superiority" based upon his belief that I was female. The post that I provided was mild. He became ever more condescending and insulting. It was at that point that the lightbulb went off and I made the connection to what my daughter had called "mansplaining". I did some research and these posts fit the description.
Again I might have left it at that but I made the connection between being treated as inferior because one is born female and being treated as inferior because one is born of a different race. In essence this was the worst kind of bigotry and women have been tolerating it for eons. But that is not an excuse to allow it to continue so I felt the need to call it out for what it was. Hence the OP.
And I am glad that I did because it is an issue that needs to be addressed. Perhaps not as urgent as others but we are all adults and capable of multitasking. The responses have been primarily positive with only a notable few exceptions. The misogynists don't understand what they are doing is wrong and that is more a matter of their inability to understand what it might be like to be someone else's shoes, or heels, as the case may be here.
Hopefully I have managed to explain this satisfactorily but if I haven't please feel free to take me task. And yes, the same disclaimer applies in that Foxy is one of favorites too.
I reread your opening post to understand it in the light of your explanation. I am not convinced Rottweiler meant that as a subtle or even subconscious put down of women, however. Had he started his post with "The MAN who said. . . . ." instead of "The WOMAN who said. . . ." would you have seen that as a put down of men?
So I have to ask you why you thought it a put down because he referred to you as a WOMAN any more than if he had referred to you as a MAN?
I hope I am also explaining myself as well as you did. While I appreciate the thought process and effort you put into the OP, it could be as easily construed that you consider simply singling a person out as a woman followed by an unflattering comment is somehow unflattering purely because it is a woman. In which case you could be consdered the mysogynist and not Rottweiler.
I do not believe you to be a mysogynist in any form, so this is purely a clinical observation and not a criticism as such.
I get tired of having to be treated differently on an intellectual or emotional basis than men are treated. I get tired of an underlying cultural inference that we women are indeed so weak and incapable of defending ourselves that words must be carefully chosen so as not to wound our fragile egos and we are expected to feel insults and unflattering comments much more intensely and in a more damaging way than do men.
Personally, just as I see attaching greater power to certain words in the area of racism actually perpetuates racism rather than eliminates it, I resent the inference that I, a woman, is somehow more damaged by the use of certain words or phrases than would be a man. And to promote that concept is to promote sexism and mysogeny.
Being called "sweetie" or "fool" (far more frequently) or any of the other terms in common usage in this forum is not the subject of this OP, Foxy. I fully appreciate the use of these terms and in the case of the negatives I take no umbrage because it serves no purpose.
I also did not take offense at being misidentified as female because I was using an Elvira avatar at the time. Such a mistake by itself was understandable and I would have ignored it or corrected it if the need arose.
What caused me to start this thread was because Rottweiler was feebly attempting to claim "superiority" based upon his belief that I was female. The post that I provided was mild. He became ever more condescending and insulting. It was at that point that the lightbulb went off and I made the connection to what my daughter had called "mansplaining". I did some research and these posts fit the description.
Again I might have left it at that but I made the connection between being treated as inferior because one is born female and being treated as inferior because one is born of a different race. In essence this was the worst kind of bigotry and women have been tolerating it for eons. But that is not an excuse to allow it to continue so I felt the need to call it out for what it was. Hence the OP.
And I am glad that I did because it is an issue that needs to be addressed. Perhaps not as urgent as others but we are all adults and capable of multitasking. The responses have been primarily positive with only a notable few exceptions. The misogynists don't understand what they are doing is wrong and that is more a matter of their inability to understand what it might be like to be someone else's shoes, or heels, as the case may be here.
Hopefully I have managed to explain this satisfactorily but if I haven't please feel free to take me task. And yes, the same disclaimer applies in that Foxy is one of favorites too.
I reread your opening post to understand it in the light of your explanation. I am not convinced Rottweiler meant that as a subtle or even subconscious put down of women, however. Had he started his post with "The MAN who said. . . . ." instead of "The WOMAN who said. . . ." would you have seen that as a put down of men?
So I have to ask you why you thought it a put down because he referred to you as a WOMAN any more than if he had referred to you as a MAN?
I hope I am also explaining myself as well as you did. While I appreciate the thought process and effort you put into the OP, it could be as easily construed that you consider simply singling a person out as a woman followed by an unflattering comment is somehow unflattering purely because it is a woman. In which case you could be consdered the mysogynist and not Rottweiler.
I do not believe you to be a mysogynist in any form, so this is purely a clinical observation and not a criticism as such.
I get tired of having to be treated differently on an intellectual or emotional basis than men are treated. I get tired of an underlying cultural inference that we women are indeed so weak and incapable of defending ourselves that words must be carefully chosen so as not to wound our fragile egos and we are expected to feel insults and unflattering comments much more intensely and in a more damaging way than do men.
Personally, just as I see attaching greater power to certain words in the area of racism actually perpetuates racism rather than eliminates it, I resent the inference that I, a woman, is somehow more damaged by the use of certain words or phrases than would be a man. And to promote that concept is to promote sexism and mysogeny.
I agree that we waste far to much time on misunderstandings. I am currently being accused of being a "commie liar" purely based upon a dialog that can only have happened in the other posters head because there is no trace of it in the thread.
If you want a clearer understanding of how I gained the impression that I did I urge you to read Rottweilers actual posts in that thread. Here are his subsequent responses;
From the above the distinct impression that I gained was of someone who was simply parroting rather than someone who actually comprehended what he was posting. The back and forth confirmed that for me.
Turning now to this point that you made;
His responses were deliberately demeaning and the negative terminology that he used was directly aimed at his belief that I was female. I highlighted a couple of them above but there were plenty of others.
Then there is the tone that he is using and that was what fits the definition of "mansplaining". Even after I provided credible links substantiating my position he persisted with his condescending attitude.
The combination is one of misogyny in my opinion and it was shared by many of the posters in this thread.
Moving on this point of yours...
I agree 100% and the best thing about these forums is that unless a poster reveals information about themselves there is no way to know their creed, color, gender, orientation, etc. So it is possible to have a discussion on equal terms about any number of topics without ever having to refer to any of those aspects of the poster at all. Done purely on the merits all such debates would be conducted in that manner. The one in this instance could have been conducted without any inference whatsoever towards gender too. However it wasn't and the reason for that is abundantly clear. Rottweiler believed that he had a "gender advantage" and tried to exploit it. Please note that I refrained from either retaliating in kind or correcting his mistake. Initially I did so because I considered it to be both irrelevant and puerile and by the time I had my "ah ha" moment I had already made the determination that he wasn't worth the effort.
So to you final point...
I agree that it can happen. In this instance though the only person attaching any weight to the terms that he was using was the mansplaining misogynist himself. Certainly the feedback in this thread is that most women treat his kind like the jerks that they are and just roll their eyes and move on.
It is more than possible that I am wrong in calling out this vile behavior and I suspect that it might just be from my own upbringing. In no way do I believe that any of the women in this forum are intimidated by the misogynists and mansplainers. They can more than hold their own. However I see this behavior as unnecessary and degrading. I would call out homophobia and I am on record as going to the defense of those of different creeds.
So perhaps this time I should just have left my white horse in the stable.
I reread your opening post to understand it in the light of your explanation. I am not convinced Rottweiler meant that as a subtle or even subconscious put down of women, however. Had he started his post with "The MAN who said. . . . ." instead of "The WOMAN who said. . . ." would you have seen that as a put down of men?
So I have to ask you why you thought it a put down because he referred to you as a WOMAN any more than if he had referred to you as a MAN?
I hope I am also explaining myself as well as you did. While I appreciate the thought process and effort you put into the OP, it could be as easily construed that you consider simply singling a person out as a woman followed by an unflattering comment is somehow unflattering purely because it is a woman. In which case you could be consdered the mysogynist and not Rottweiler.
I do not believe you to be a mysogynist in any form, so this is purely a clinical observation and not a criticism as such.
I get tired of having to be treated differently on an intellectual or emotional basis than men are treated. I get tired of an underlying cultural inference that we women are indeed so weak and incapable of defending ourselves that words must be carefully chosen so as not to wound our fragile egos and we are expected to feel insults and unflattering comments much more intensely and in a more damaging way than do men.
Personally, just as I see attaching greater power to certain words in the area of racism actually perpetuates racism rather than eliminates it, I resent the inference that I, a woman, is somehow more damaged by the use of certain words or phrases than would be a man. And to promote that concept is to promote sexism and mysogeny.
I agree that we waste far to much time on misunderstandings. I am currently being accused of being a "commie liar" purely based upon a dialog that can only have happened in the other posters head because there is no trace of it in the thread.
If you want a clearer understanding of how I gained the impression that I did I urge you to read Rottweilers actual posts in that thread. Here are his subsequent responses;
From the above the distinct impression that I gained was of someone who was simply parroting rather than someone who actually comprehended what he was posting. The back and forth confirmed that for me.
Turning now to this point that you made;
His responses were deliberately demeaning and the negative terminology that he used was directly aimed at his belief that I was female. I highlighted a couple of them above but there were plenty of others.
Then there is the tone that he is using and that was what fits the definition of "mansplaining". Even after I provided credible links substantiating my position he persisted with his condescending attitude.
The combination is one of misogyny in my opinion and it was shared by many of the posters in this thread.
Moving on this point of yours...
I agree 100% and the best thing about these forums is that unless a poster reveals information about themselves there is no way to know their creed, color, gender, orientation, etc. So it is possible to have a discussion on equal terms about any number of topics without ever having to refer to any of those aspects of the poster at all. Done purely on the merits all such debates would be conducted in that manner. The one in this instance could have been conducted without any inference whatsoever towards gender too. However it wasn't and the reason for that is abundantly clear. Rottweiler believed that he had a "gender advantage" and tried to exploit it. Please note that I refrained from either retaliating in kind or correcting his mistake. Initially I did so because I considered it to be both irrelevant and puerile and by the time I had my "ah ha" moment I had already made the determination that he wasn't worth the effort.
So to you final point...
I agree that it can happen. In this instance though the only person attaching any weight to the terms that he was using was the mansplaining misogynist himself. Certainly the feedback in this thread is that most women treat his kind like the jerks that they are and just roll their eyes and move on.
It is more than possible that I am wrong in calling out this vile behavior and I suspect that it might just be from my own upbringing. In no way do I believe that any of the women in this forum are intimidated by the misogynists and mansplainers. They can more than hold their own. However I see this behavior as unnecessary and degrading. I would call out homophobia and I am on record as going to the defense of those of different creeds.
So perhaps this time I should just have left my white horse in the stable.
No, I don't think you were wrong in calling out the behavior as you saw it. I'm still just not seeing it in the same light as you saw it. Again, if you substitute "big guy" or "grown up" instead of "big girl" or substitute "ignorant prick" instead of "ignorant twat", would it have been equally offensive or whatever the opposite of misynogist is? What is the difference? Or more precisely to the point I am getting at, why should it be seen as different based on the gender of the person addressed?
We are after all of different sexes. I see no problem in pointing that out or using it in a description of somebody any more than I see a problem with pointing out different skin colors or ethnicities or religions so long as we treat people the same.
Because Rottweiler has always treated me exactly like he treats any other member at USMB, and knowing I am a female, he has never talked down to me, I can't believe his posts were misogynist. Those 'sweetie, etc.' lines are so uncharacteristic of him, I suspect they were provoked, but in all honesty I didn't take the time to review that other thread so I don't know that for sure.
In defense of your point of view on this one however, as you know I generally use something portraying an asexual fox in my avatars which do not usually suggest a gender. And I can't count the times I have been debating a point with a guy, either pro or con on a subject, and he will assume I am a guy. And when his observation is accompanied by a compliment, I'll have to admit I wonder why he assumes that if I made a good argument, I am most likely a guy?
And I chalk that up to an inate sense of hypersensitivity that I have spent a good deal of my life distancing myself from. My theory is, if we want to be equals with men, we have to be willing to be treated like men treat men and held exactly to the same standards.
I agree that we waste far to much time on misunderstandings. I am currently being accused of being a "commie liar" purely based upon a dialog that can only have happened in the other posters head because there is no trace of it in the thread.
If you want a clearer understanding of how I gained the impression that I did I urge you to read Rottweilers actual posts in that thread. Here are his subsequent responses;
From the above the distinct impression that I gained was of someone who was simply parroting rather than someone who actually comprehended what he was posting. The back and forth confirmed that for me.
Turning now to this point that you made;
His responses were deliberately demeaning and the negative terminology that he used was directly aimed at his belief that I was female. I highlighted a couple of them above but there were plenty of others.
Then there is the tone that he is using and that was what fits the definition of "mansplaining". Even after I provided credible links substantiating my position he persisted with his condescending attitude.
The combination is one of misogyny in my opinion and it was shared by many of the posters in this thread.
Moving on this point of yours...
I agree 100% and the best thing about these forums is that unless a poster reveals information about themselves there is no way to know their creed, color, gender, orientation, etc. So it is possible to have a discussion on equal terms about any number of topics without ever having to refer to any of those aspects of the poster at all. Done purely on the merits all such debates would be conducted in that manner. The one in this instance could have been conducted without any inference whatsoever towards gender too. However it wasn't and the reason for that is abundantly clear. Rottweiler believed that he had a "gender advantage" and tried to exploit it. Please note that I refrained from either retaliating in kind or correcting his mistake. Initially I did so because I considered it to be both irrelevant and puerile and by the time I had my "ah ha" moment I had already made the determination that he wasn't worth the effort.
So to you final point...
I agree that it can happen. In this instance though the only person attaching any weight to the terms that he was using was the mansplaining misogynist himself. Certainly the feedback in this thread is that most women treat his kind like the jerks that they are and just roll their eyes and move on.
It is more than possible that I am wrong in calling out this vile behavior and I suspect that it might just be from my own upbringing. In no way do I believe that any of the women in this forum are intimidated by the misogynists and mansplainers. They can more than hold their own. However I see this behavior as unnecessary and degrading. I would call out homophobia and I am on record as going to the defense of those of different creeds.
So perhaps this time I should just have left my white horse in the stable.
No, I don't think you were wrong in calling out the behavior as you saw it. I'm still just not seeing it in the same light as you saw it. Again, if you substitute "big guy" or "grown up" instead of "big girl" or substitute "ignorant prick" instead of "ignorant twat", would it have been equally offensive or whatever the opposite of misynogist is? What is the difference? Or more precisely to the point I am getting at, why should it be seen as different based on the gender of the person addressed?
We are after all of different sexes. I see no problem in pointing that out or using it in a description of somebody any more than I see a problem with pointing out different skin colors or ethnicities or religions so long as we treat people the same.
Because Rottweiler has always treated me exactly like he treats any other member at USMB, and knowing I am a female, he has never talked down to me, I can't believe his posts were misogynist. Those 'sweetie, etc.' lines are so uncharacteristic of him, I suspect they were provoked, but in all honesty I didn't take the time to review that other thread so I don't know that for sure.
In defense of your point of view on this one however, as you know I generally use something portraying an asexual fox in my avatars which do not usually suggest a gender. And I can't count the times I have been debating a point with a guy, either pro or con on a subject, and he will assume I am a guy. And when his observation is accompanied by a compliment, I'll have to admit I wonder why he assumes that if I made a good argument, I am most likely a guy?
And I chalk that up to an inate sense of hypersensitivity that I have spent a good deal of my life distancing myself from. My theory is, if we want to be equals with men, we have to be willing to be treated like men treat men and held exactly to the same standards.
Yes, it would be misandry.
No, I don't think you were wrong in calling out the behavior as you saw it. I'm still just not seeing it in the same light as you saw it. Again, if you substitute "big guy" or "grown up" instead of "big girl" or substitute "ignorant prick" instead of "ignorant twat", would it have been equally offensive or whatever the opposite of misynogist is? What is the difference? Or more precisely to the point I am getting at, why should it be seen as different based on the gender of the person addressed?
We are after all of different sexes. I see no problem in pointing that out or using it in a description of somebody any more than I see a problem with pointing out different skin colors or ethnicities or religions so long as we treat people the same.
Because Rottweiler has always treated me exactly like he treats any other member at USMB, and knowing I am a female, he has never talked down to me, I can't believe his posts were misogynist. Those 'sweetie, etc.' lines are so uncharacteristic of him, I suspect they were provoked, but in all honesty I didn't take the time to review that other thread so I don't know that for sure.
In defense of your point of view on this one however, as you know I generally use something portraying an asexual fox in my avatars which do not usually suggest a gender. And I can't count the times I have been debating a point with a guy, either pro or con on a subject, and he will assume I am a guy. And when his observation is accompanied by a compliment, I'll have to admit I wonder why he assumes that if I made a good argument, I am most likely a guy?
And I chalk that up to an inate sense of hypersensitivity that I have spent a good deal of my life distancing myself from. My theory is, if we want to be equals with men, we have to be willing to be treated like men treat men and held exactly to the same standards.
Yes, it would be misandry.
LOL. Is misandry the antonym of misogyny? I did a very cursory search and the only antonyms it offered were defined 'love of women' as the opposite of "hatred of or contempt for women'.
But I don't see 'ignorant prick' or such as intended in the same way as 'misogyny', nor do I see all sexist terms as misogynist.
True, only women are generally referred to as 'ho's" and historically only males would be pimps holding authority over a stable of 'ho's", but the historical references are in no way related to my own experience and therefore to not apply. So if a guy calls me a 'ho", he won't be referring to me as a prostitute but rather as one who immorally sells out something for money or self gain. Would he call a guy who does the same a 'ho"? Probably not as historically guys pimped themselves as gigolos but were their own entreprenours without overseers. So historically the word doesn't hold the same inference. Just as calling a woman a 'pimp' would not hold the same inference as calling a guy a 'pimp'.
the single post is poofed.... or the whole thread is poofed.
