Truth about Porn

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

Are you essentially suggesting that porn imitates life (or more correctly is adhering to a demand) rather than the other way around?

I'm not asserting anything. I'm positing a possibility that porn producers, writers,etc are picking up with their watering forks, a demand which has not yet risen to the surface, which not only satisfies a desire but also creates one in that its satisfaction, by desensitizes nature

In other words, if there is a demand for violence and degradation in mainstream entertainment (rte has three hours of csi sometimes) then why wouldn't this bleed (excuse the language) into increasing the expectations in other genres.

But I am asking more than asserting.

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

Are we just bored looking for more and more stimulation, growing more and more desensitited?

Pretty much. At least for me, I left Europe and went to live in Asia as a way of getting away from the "norm". Other people I know found other releases such as the net, or something else. Since I've come back I've found myself once more sucked back into spending hours on the net simply because I'm bored with western society. Boredom is rife now. Too many choices, and yet so few good choices. So many little pushes from all directions sending you this way and that. Its no suprise that many people seek anything to escape from the "usual" way of things.

Let me put it this way... I watch Sky News occasionally, and its extremely rare that any story shocks me. I'm not really that bothered when i hear of a plane crash or shooting. Or when i see the casualty reports in Iraq. I know on a conscious logical manner that such things should bother me, and yet they don't. The manner in which the media has over the last three decades presented world events has created that lack of interest in me. Sure, some of it is just my personality, but the responsibility cannot stick with just me.

And yet porn is different. I've watched a good bit of it over the years, some for personal use, and some from a business perspective (used to work in web design). And my attitudes towards sex are not messed up. I still respect myself and others. I don't treat women bad, nor do I have any interest in mixing pain & pleasure. I also have no interest in "extreme" sex, either participating nor observing. Porn doesn't have any central source so it doesn't seem to affect me the same way as the media seems to have done.

Strange isn't it?

metrovelvet

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, I think we were a very open society and now were reverting back to the closed society setup. Regulations, and other restrictions seem to be the norm now with just about everything coming under scrutiny. There also seems to be a lot less tolerance towards ideas and practices compared with ten years ago.

Maybe that's a clue as to why we are demanding more morbidity and violence in our media. We have to hang it somewhere. A lashing out?

Then you have to ask, if what the article cites is true about porn and its exposure and the more unsavory,or less pink and fluffy parts of it becoming more popular, then what does this indicate?

Does it indicate that men hate women or that they are lashing out and if so why? Is it part of a global masculinity crisis?

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

I'm not asserting anything.

I didn't say you were, I asked if you were suggesting.

I'm positing a possibility that porn producers, writers,etc are picking up with their watering forks, a demand which has not yet risen to the surface, which not only satisfies a desire but also creates one in that its satisfaction, by desensitizes nature

In other words, if there is a demand for violence and degradation in mainstream entertainment (rte has three hours of csi sometimes) then why wouldn't this bleed (excuse the language) into increasing the expectations in other genres.

There's possibly some truth in that. I do believe that porn does have an effect on society (whether this is on balance positive or negative is open to debate), but that - as with any business - society has an effect on porn, in the shape of market demand.

So what you are suggesting/asking is perfectly plausible.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Maybe that's a clue as to why we are demanding more morbidity and violence in our media. We have to hang it somewhere. A lashing out?

Are we demanding more morbidity and violence in our media though? Morbidity and violence in media, popular entertainment or society in general is nothing new, as the Romans would attest, and the last century has seen many forms of pre-existing morbidity and violence, such as blood sports or even war, being phased out, only to be replaced with new forms.

So maybe it's not increasing. Maybe it was always there and is simply finding new outlets as the old ones are closed off.

Does it indicate that men hate women or that they are lashing out and if so why? Is it part of a global masculinity crisis?

This is where your logic takes a bit of a giant leap. While it is reasonable to suggest that society is effecting porn with a greater demand for morbidity and violence and even arguable that this demand has overall increased within society, you've taken a huge speculative leap to imply that it is down to some form of misogynistic backlash.

Before you can suggest that you realistically need to create a more cogent link between them.

metrovelvet

Deleted User wrote: »

Pretty much. At least for me, I left Europe and went to live in Asia as a way of getting away from the "norm". Other people I know found other releases such as the net, or something else. Since I've come back I've found myself once more sucked back into spending hours on the net simply because I'm bored with western society. Boredom is rife now. Too many choices, and yet so few good choices. So many little pushes from all directions sending you this way and that. Its no suprise that many people seek anything to escape from the "usual" way of things.

Let me put it this way... I watch Sky News occasionally, and its extremely rare that any story shocks me. I'm not really that bothered when i hear of a plane crash or shooting. Or when i see the casualty reports in Iraq. I know on a conscious logical manner that such things should bother me, and yet they don't. The manner in which the media has over the last three decades presented world events has created that lack of interest in me. Sure, some of it is just my personality, but the responsibility cannot stick with just me.

And yet porn is different. I've watched a good bit of it over the years, some for personal use, and some from a business perspective (used to work in web design). And my attitudes towards sex are not messed up. I still respect myself and others. I don't treat women bad, nor do I have any interest in mixing pain & pleasure. I also have no interest in "extreme" sex, either participating nor observing. Porn doesn't have any central source so it doesn't seem to affect me the same way as the media seems to have done.

Strange isn't it?

Ok but that's you.

Maybe you're not paying 2000 a month for kids you never see.

Maybe you're not a white working class disenfranchised male who got overlooked in the political climates.

Maybe you dont have an overbearing mother who suffocated you.

Maybe your not a sexually frustrated husband dependant on one woman for sex and affection.

Maybe your not a man who feels emasculated by having to share housework and change nappies.

Maybe you're not one of those guys who is pissed off and disenfranchised.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

I didn't say you were, I asked if you were suggesting.

There's possibly some truth in that. I do believe that porn does have an effect on society (whether this is on balance positive or negative is open to debate), but that - as with any business - society has an effect on porn, in the shape of market demand.

So what you are suggesting/asking is perfectly plausible.

Are we demanding more morbidity and violence in our media though? Morbidity and violence in media, popular entertainment or society in general is nothing new, as the Romans would attest, and the last century has seen many forms of pre-existing morbidity and violence, such as blood sports or even war, being phased out, only to be replaced with new forms.

So maybe it's not increasing. Maybe it was always there and is simply finding new outlets as the old ones are closed off.

This is where your logic takes a bit of a giant leap. While it is reasonable to suggest that society is effecting porn with a greater demand for morbidity and violence and even arguable that this demand has overall increased within society, you've taken a huge speculative leap to imply that it is down to some form of misogynistic backlash.

Before you can suggest that you realistically need to create a more cogent link between them.

I did suggest a comparison to Rome, wealth and an increased need for sensation.

I do think in the porn the article refers to, there is misogyny.

But I dont think that's a reason to dismiss it. It's a reason to investigate it.

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

Maybe that's a clue as to why we are demanding more morbidity and violence in our media. We have to hang it somewhere. A lashing out?

I don't think we are asking for more morbidity and violence in our media... We all acknowledge that the Media seeks to thrill its watchers in some way to maintain its viewing ratings. The US has made itself the worst example of this, where watching the news is almost like watching some reality show. How much of that is the company itself pushing it on the public and how much is the audience asking for more, i don't know. But i would suggest that it was the media outlets that set the ball rolling, and now they're just seeking to maintain the momentum.

Then you have to ask, if what the article cites is true about porn and its exposure and the more unsavory,or less pink and fluffy parts of it becoming more popular, then what does this indicate?

Just that there are more people switching on to it. Its easy to forget that the makeup of ages in populations of countries is changing. My parents, for example, have figured out email but ask them to use google to find a hotel, and they'll be at it for an hour, whereas we could do it in 2 minutes.

And then there's the "newer" generations since I was born who are becoming more technologically aware than I ever was, and I'm fairly clued in on most things related to the net. And yet they bring that awareness to new levels. And with that awareness comes the ability to find just about anything thats available. and with the net completely open to scrutiny, its natural that people will get bored easily with the common material and seek the more shocking stuff (at least for a while, until they get bored with that too).

Does it indicate that men hate women or that they are lashing out and if so why? Is it part of a global masculinity crisis?

I still have no belief that this is anything solely related to men. Women watch porn. I've had ex-girlfriends that had larger collections of porn than I'd seen in my friends places.. (my own collection is rather small)... From my own personal experience, my encounters have introduced different positions/actions by the women rather than me searching for them. And it goes on.

Personally, I think its a cop out. A way of throwing off responsibility. Its easier to point the finger at men, and say they're to blame rather than looking at both sexes and acknowledging the responsibilities & choices made by both sexes. The article is just another aspect of the extreme feminism where they seek any way to demean men. Porn is just another weapon.

That's my take on it anyway.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

I do think in the porn the article refers to, there is misogyny.

I don't know if you could go that far. Misogyny would imply that it is specifically directed against women and the only reason it is in such porn is because it is geared towards the heterosexual market. Look to the gay market and you will likely find the same thing - and there's it's unlikely to have anything to do with misogyny.

So I simply don't think you've made a plausible enough connection between the two.

But I dont think that's a reason to dismiss it. It's a reason to investigate it.

Fair enough, but that's a lot of porn to watch then.

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ok but that's you.

Maybe you're not paying 2000 a month for kids you never see.

Maybe you're not a white working class disenfranchised male who got overlooked in the political climates.

Maybe you dont have an overbearing mother who suffocated you.

Maybe your not a sexually frustrated husband dependant on one woman for sex and affection.

Maybe your not a man who feels emasculated by having to share housework and change nappies.

Maybe you're not one of those guys who is pissed off and disenfranchised.

Woe, I guess I should have put all the "I"'s and "I've" and such in bold to highlight that this was my experience(s). For God's sake. :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fair enough, but that's a lot of porn to watch then.

He/She better be careful... with that much porn you might come out foaming at the mouth and hating everything about women.

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im not a criminologist and I do not have historical crime stats but you have to admit that the publics appetite for violent imagery has gotten bigger and is being fed.

I do? Why do I have to admit that?

Again the only thing I can see has changed is that we are more open about it.

You think people were having rough sex, or jizzing on each other's faces in the 1950s?

AngryBadger

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ok but that's you.
Maybe you're not paying 2000 a month for kids you never see.
Maybe you're not a white working class disenfranchised male who got overlooked in the political climates.
Maybe you dont have an overbearing mother who suffocated you.
Maybe your not a sexually frustrated husband dependant on one woman for sex and affection.
Maybe your not a man who feels emasculated by having to share housework and change nappies.
Maybe you're not one of those guys who is pissed off and disenfranchised.

What is your point here? Nobody is denying that there are people in the world who do bad things, that there are men who disabuse women, and women who disabuse men. In all of your posts you "posit" nothing of substance, speculation that this, that, and the other thing may possibly be happening is not the same as it being a fact, and this kind of thinking is damaging in the extremes to everybodys civil liberties.

Answer me this, you feel that porn is misogynistic, surely a simple way of redressing this imbalance would be women not being involved in porn? Now I realise the obvious response is "oh well when women are abused blah blah blah of course they're going to get into porn", so why aren't you arguing for measures to address the problems leading to this (frankly phantom) phenomenon of only abused women getting into porn?

Any kind of media is both a reflection, and a refraction of what people want, and think they want. Yes the media does report things in a very biased way, but that only matters if people lack the brain cells to seperate the fact from the fiction, (eg. by maybe getting their information from more than one source). Citing shows like "CSI" as an example of people becoeming desensitised to violence is annoying to me for 2 reasons

1) Increased violence in these shows can jsut as easily be defended as adding realism to proceedings

2) There is an irrefutable, and fundamental problem with any individual who cannot make the distinction between something they see in the media, and what happens in the real world. Surely the solution is not censoring all and sundry (and thus punishing healthy, balanced individuals who have the right to pursue their own tastes so long as they're not infringing on anyone else).

I apologise for coming off heavy-handed here, but this thread (and many like it), reeks of the standard "all porn is bad and men are responsible" dross that typifies any discussion of gender issues.

Honestly I can't even understand why porn seems to fall under the category of gender issues, surely it's a question of taste as any right-thinking adult should be able to make the necessary distinctions????

Zombrex

AngryBadger wrote: »

I apologise for coming off heavy-handed here, but this thread (and many like it), reeks of the standard "all porn is bad and men are responsible" dross that typifies any discussion of gender issues.

Didn't you get the memo, everything bad that happens to women is the fault of men

AngryBadger

Wicknight wrote: »

Didn't you get the memo, everything bad that happens to women is the fault of men

I think I was coming up with new ways to express my misogynistic views on women through porn and pass it off as art that day :rolleyes:

metrovelvet

Ok. I was trying to open up thd dialogue, that's all.

Nevermind.

Enjoy your porn. Happy friday.

Dr. Zeus

Extract from Guardian article. Note the male porn star explaining his reason for entering the profession. Of course this is one person but why is it so hard to admit that there may be some element of misogny underlying porn! Please note I did not say all porn!

"Men, say psychologists, also feel threatened by the "emotional power" they perceive women wielding over them. Unable to feel alive except when in relationships with women, they are at the same time painfully aware that their only salvation from isolation comes in being sexually acceptable to women. This sense of neediness can provoke intense anger that, all too often, finds expression in porn. Unlike real life, the pornographic world is a place in which men find their authority unchallenged and in which women are their willing, even grateful servants. "The illusion is created," as one male writer on pornography puts it, "that women are really in their rightful place and that there is, after all, no real and serious challenge to male authority."

Seen in this light, the patently ridiculous pornography scenario of the pretty female flat-hunter (or hitch-hiker, driver with broken-down car, or any number of similar such vulnerable roles) who is happy to let herself be gang-banged by a group of overweight, hairy-shouldered couch potatoes makes perfect psychological sense.

The porn industry, of course, dismisses such talk, yet occasionally comes a glimmer of authenticity. Bill Margold, one of the industry's longest-serving film performers, was interviewed in 1991 by psychoanalyst Robert Stoller for his book Porn: Myths For The Twentieth Century. Margold made no attempt to gloss over the realities. "My whole reason for being in this industry is to satisfy the desire of the men in the world who basically don't care much for women and want to see the men in my industry getting even with the women they couldn't have when they were growing up. So we come on a woman's face or brutalise her sexually: we're getting even for lost dreams."

metrovelvet

AngryBadger wrote: »

What is your point here? Nobody is denying that there are people in the world who do bad things, that there are men who disabuse women, and women who disabuse men. In all of your posts you "posit" nothing of substance, speculation that this, that, and the other thing may possibly be happening is not the same as it being a fact, and this kind of thinking is damaging in the extremes to everybodys civil liberties.

Answer me this, you feel that porn is misogynistic, surely a simple way of redressing this imbalance would be women not being involved in porn? Now I realise the obvious response is "oh well when women are abused blah blah blah of course they're going to get into porn", so why aren't you arguing for measures to address the problems leading to this (frankly phantom) phenomenon of only abused women getting into porn?

Any kind of media is both a reflection, and a refraction of what people want, and think they want. Yes the media does report things in a very biased way, but that only matters if people lack the brain cells to seperate the fact from the fiction, (eg. by maybe getting their information from more than one source). Citing shows like "CSI" as an example of people becoeming desensitised to violence is annoying to me for 2 reasons

1) Increased violence in these shows can jsut as easily be defended as adding realism to proceedings

2) There is an irrefutable, and fundamental problem with any individual who cannot make the distinction between something they see in the media, and what happens in the real world. Surely the solution is not censoring all and sundry (and thus punishing healthy, balanced individuals who have the right to pursue their own tastes so long as they're not infringing on anyone else).

I apologise for coming off heavy-handed here, but this thread (and many like it), reeks of the standard "all porn is bad and men are responsible" dross that typifies any discussion of gender issues.

Honestly I can't even understand why porn seems to fall under the category of gender issues, surely it's a question of taste as any right-thinking adult should be able to make the necessary distinctions????

First of all, let me disabuse you. Disabuse means to clarify, dispel confusion. So yes, men disabuse women, women disabuse men, but what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

Secondly, I really don't think you have a clue about what I'm talking about. I'm not even talking about porn, i'm talking about an article that is about a woman who is criticizing then influence of porn and what she sees as an ever increasing mysogynistic content.

The rest of your post is such uneducated drivel it's not worth taking the time to re read let alone comment on.

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

The rest of your post is such uneducated drivel it's not worth taking the time to re read let alone comment on.

metrovelvet, personally I think he made more sense in that one post than all of your ramblings thus far... :rolleyes:

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't know if you could go that far. Misogyny would imply that it is specifically directed against women and the only reason it is in such porn is because it is geared towards the heterosexual market. Look to the gay market and you will likely find the same thing - and there's it's unlikely to have anything to do with misogyny.

So I simply don't think you've made a plausible enough connection between the two.

Fair enough, but that's a lot of porn to watch then.

I said in the porn the article refers to, not porn in general. This is a point in the article that seems to escape all of you.

Someone start a thread please on how people don't know how to read anymore.



Misogyny doesn't imply its 'directed against women'. What makes you say that? Misogyny means a hatred of women.

Eve_Dublin

There was an article in the The Guardian today (thank feck for The Guardian!) that I don´t think is completely unrelated. Give it a read. It touches on the pornification of our society and the rise in casual misogynistic language directed at women. Read the comments as well if you have time:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/30/casual-sexism-misogyny

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

I said in the porn the article refers to, not porn in general. This is a point in the article that seems to escape all of you.

I understood this, but counter-argued that you are jumping to conclusions in suggesting that even in the porn the article refers to is fueled by misogyny as opposed to a more basic violent nature in men or humans in general.

Someone start a thread please on how people don't know how to read anymore.

Feisty.

Misogyny doesn't imply its 'directed against women'. What makes you say that? Misogyny means a hatred of women.

Is hatred not normally directed against someone or thing? Are we playing word games now?

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

There was an article in the The Guardian today (thank feck for The Guardian!) that I don´t think is completely unrelated. Give it a read. It touches on the pornification of our society and the rise in casual misogynistic language directed at women.

It's funny how all these articles seem to come out of the Guardian.

Eve_Dublin

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's funny how all these articles seem to come out of the Guardian.

No, all these articles are not JUST printed in The Guardian. I happen to be a Guardian reader and saw the article printed in it.

Why would you dismiss it purely because it was printed in The Guardian? Who cares where it was printed???

Anyway, I can´t think of another paper in the UK and Ireland who would be brave enough to print something like this, can you?

Even if you don´t agree with it (I´m taking it you don´t because of your dismissive comment), it´s food for thought, which is more than I can say for most of what is published in English language papers today.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

I understood this, but counter-argued that you are jumping to conclusions in suggesting that even in the porn the article refers to is fueled by misogyny as opposed to a more basic violent nature in men or humans in general.

Feisty.

Is hatred not normally directed against someone or thing? Are we playing word games now?

It's funny how all these articles seem to come out of the Guardian.

This is kind of along the lines of what I was asking. That it is in gay porn too, would suggest that.

I'm sure some women watch porn, just like some women watch The Sopranos and Krinenburg films, but this minority audience doesnt change the fact they are made by and for men. And what is described in the article is misogynistic. What is interesting to explore is what the misogyny is all about, not to defensively deny its existence.

Gay men btw are not immune to misandry.

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

I'm sure some women watch porn, just like some women watch The Sopranos and Krinenburg films, but this minority audience doesnt change the fact they are made by and for men. And what is described in the article is misogynistic. What is interesting to explore is what the misogyny is all about, not to defensively deny its existence.

The thing i find interesting is that if you browse the bulletin boards devoted to the Sopranos or Dexter (since i enjoy both shows) you'll find quite a few female posters with high post counts talking about the shows in great detail.... Some might be complaining, but they're there every week to talk about the next episode.

I think you've missed something important. While these "kind" of shows may originally have been started with men as the primary audience, now thats changed. No marketer is going to ignore women if he knows that his product appeals to them. Half the work is done already. Women are as important an audience for these kind of shows as men.

The Corinthian

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Anyway, I can´t think of another paper in the UK and Ireland who would be brave enough to print something like this, can you?

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Another is that the Guardian has a very specific editorial slant that sometimes means that it will publish POV's that you won't find anywhere else in mainstream media, just as papers like the Telegraph will be more likely to publish Islamophobic pieces. It's hardly surprising that both the article that you posted and the one that kicked off this thread came from the same stable.

That doesn't make them brave, it just means they're publishing an ideological slant they know will be lapped up by their readers, regardless of whether it has any merit beyond preaching to the converted.

Even if you don´t agree with it (I´m taking it you don´t because of your dismissive comment), it´s food for thought, which is more than I can say for most of what is published in English language papers today.

I presume you mean food for thought for us? If so, I might suggest you read a paper where you disagree with the editorial slant. Then that will be food for thought for you.

metrovelvet wrote: »

And what is described in the article is misogynistic. What is interesting to explore is what the misogyny is all about, not to defensively deny its existence.

Only if it is specifically against women as opposed to against one's sexual partner in a heterosexual context (which limits it to women). That is why gay porn would contradict your claim that it is down to misogyny, because there one's sexual partner is male - yet if treated in the same manner it becomes much less likely that any hatred or violence is directed at a specific gender.

In short, while it may be a male quality (or deficiency), it may be directed towards a sexual partner, rather than gender.

Another thing that comes to mind here, is we're all making a lot of assumptions about this type of porn. Are we discussing it because it is the most popular or because it is the most talked about (or both)? It would be interesting to first know what market share such extreme porn holds, because we could be needlessly be discussing a red herring.

metrovelvet

Yes. That should not be ruled out. And we should be open to that possibility.

But we should also be open to the possibility that if misoginistic content is increasing, then is it a releflection of a wider contempt? And if so what is it that the men are contemptuous (angry?) about? Does that not deserve attention?

Eve_Dublin

The Corinthian wrote: »

I presume you mean food for thought for us? If so, I might suggest you read a paper where you disagree with the editorial slant. Then that will be food for thought for you.

Yes food for thought for you. Thank you for your suggestion but I´m miles ahead of you. I read/scan all the British and Irish papers everyday, even The Sun. My business requires I do. Why would you presume I don´t already???? And in fairness, I never actually said I agreed or disagreed with the article completely. There´s truth to be taken from it though. You still haven´t made any comment regarding the article, just the paper it was printed in. Who cares where it was printed??

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

But we should also be open to the possibility that if misoginistic content is increasing, then is it a releflection of a wider contempt?

Before that we need to be open to the possibility that it is primarily misogynistic content to begin with and honestly I would question that.

And if so what is it that the men are contemptuous (angry?) about? Does that not deserve attention?

If it is primarily misogynistic content to begin with, then sure, it deserves attention.

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Why would you presume I don´t already????

In that case, no other publication gives you food for thought on this issue.

And in fairness, I never actually said I agreed or disagreed with the article completely.

In fairness, you would not have posted it, without debunking it, if you disagreed with it. It is evident that you do agree with it to a large degree, even if you do not 'completely'.

You still haven´t made any comment regarding the article, just the paper it was printed in. Who cares where it was printed??

Because it relates to the impartiality of the publisher and the slant they are more likely to attempt to 'push' under the pretext of 'food for thought'.

As to the piece; it's drivel. It complains about apparently misogynistic insults directed against women, yet ignores the fact that there is an entire lexicon of equivalent insults for men. Insults are insults - they're specifically designed to go for the jugular, and so it is perfectly understandable that one would use all available means to do that - including the use of gender.

That does not mean that the person making the insult hates all woman, just as calling a man a "prick", "loser" or "fag" (all geared towards attacking things such as their role as a male or sexuality) means you hate all men. Just that woman, or that man.

Eve_Dublin

Yeah, I do agree to some extent, the general point but my own personal experiences haven´t been that extreme although I have experienced it ...it hits home for me but then I am a woman and you´re not. Were going to have different perspectives. You think it´s drivel...no surprise there then. I really didn´t think you´d see any truth in it going by your opinions on this thread. Ah well.

The language directed at men is nowhere near as vicious as the language directed at women and you know it! Slut, slag, bitch, **** (why is this word so much worse than dick....women can be called dickheads as well and a "loser"....loser is not gender specific)...whore, silly cow, silly bitch....in fact "silly" as an adjective when referring only to women....God I could go on but I´ll leave you to it.

Eve_Dublin

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

The language directed at men is nowhere near as vicious as the language directed at women and you know it! Slut, slag, bitch, **** (why is this word so much worse than dick....women can be called dickheads as well and a "loser"....loser is not gender specific)...whore, silly cow, silly bitch....in fact "silly" as an adjective when referring only to women....God I could go on but I´ll leave you to it.

Just some food for thought... but have you ever considered that women are encouraged to feel worse by being on the receiving end of such insults. Men on the other hand are expected to mostly shrug it off or react in a "violent" manner. I've been on the receiving end of many insults in my time as a credit controller, and also as an English teacher. I learned through my teens to ignore such comments since they were usually made by complete idiots incapable of making up any creative comments. Although I have a few female friends who aren't shy about throwing out the most disgusting of insults, but cry or freeze up when they are insulted in turn.

And silly is applicable to both men and women.

Cyzrane

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

The language directed at men is nowhere near as vicious as the language directed at women and you know it! Slut, slag, bitch, **** (why is this word so much worse than dick....women can be called dickheads as well and a "loser"....loser is not gender specific)...whore, silly cow, silly bitch....in fact "silly" as an adjective when referring only to women....God I could go on but I´ll leave you to it.

I don't think that any insult can be objectively "worse" than another. Insults, by their very nature, rely on subjectivity and emotional attack. If somebody is predisposed to be more sensitive to a particular angle of attack (for whatever reason) then they'll take greater offence at a particular insult.

In point of fact, for you (as a woman) the above terms are very charged. But saying that they are globally "worse" is a bit of a stretch. It all depends on the individual you're insulting, really.

The Corinthian

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Yeah, I do agree to some extent, the general point but my own personal experiences haven´t been that extreme although I have experienced it ...it hits home for me but then I am a woman and you´re not. Were going to have different perspectives. You think it´s drivel...no surprise there then. I really didn´t think you´d see any truth in it going by your opinions on this thread. Ah well.

I find it ironic that you questioned my apparently dismissal of the article based upon the publication then dismissed my own view based upon my gender.

The language directed at men is nowhere near as vicious as the language directed at women and you know it! Slut, slag, bitch, **** (why is this word so much worse than dick....women can be called dickheads as well and a "loser"....loser is not gender specific)...whore, silly cow, silly bitch....in fact "silly" as an adjective when referring only to women....God I could go on but I´ll leave you to it.

I disagree - those were just a few terms off the top of my head, I could have gone on; "needledick", "asshole", "nob" or "waster", to mention only a few. I completely disagree that those terms that are used against women are more vicious in comparison.

Loser was gender specific, before gender roles began to change. Even so, to question a man's success as a potential provider is still a far greater insult than the same of a woman. This is hardly surprising as our attitudes have not changed all that much; I remember reading that on dating sites the most common lie by women in their profiles was their age, while with men it was their salary.

Overall, I think you, and the author of the article you cited, are looking for misogynistic and patriarchal roots to such language for the sake of validating an ideological position and it's all too easy to make a case in that direction if you're willing to ignore all the facts - deconstruction is in the eye of the beholder.

gbee

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

There was an article in the The Guardian today (thank feck for The Guardian!)

The most interesting thing I took from it was that a woman writer is more successfully pretending to be a male. And especially for a woman's market.

I had to look up misogyny, but what's the word for women hating women?

metrovelvet

gbee wrote: »

The most interesting thing I took from it was that a woman writer is more successfully pretending to be a male. And especially for a woman's market.

I had to look up misogyny, but what's the word for women hating women?

That's not a surprise. Authors have more authority when they're male.

Misogyny is not exclusive to men. Women practise it too.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

That's not a surprise. Authors have more authority when they're male.

Not sure if that is true anymore.

Misogyny is not exclusive to men. Women practise it too.

"On one issue, at least, men and women agree: they both distrust women" - Henry Louis Mencken

metrovelvet

Hmmnn....I suspect it is true in certain markets.

metrovelvet

Deleted User wrote: »

Just some food for thought... but have you ever considered that women are encouraged to feel worse by being on the receiving end of such insults. Men on the other hand are expected to mostly shrug it off or react in a "violent" manner. I've been on the receiving end of many insults in my time as a credit controller, and also as an English teacher. I learned through my teens to ignore such comments since they were usually made by complete idiots incapable of making up any creative comments. Although I have a few female friends who aren't shy about throwing out the most disgusting of insults, but cry or freeze up when they are insulted in turn.

And silly is applicable to both men and women.

Good point. Do you think boys and men are socialised to desensitise?

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Hmmnn....I suspect it is true in certain markets.

Perhaps in books on DIY you may have a point.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Good point. Do you think boys and men are socialised to desensitise?

Or do you think girls and women are socialised to hypersensitise?

metrovelvet

I think jk rowling was smart to change her name.

Are girls socialised to be hypersensitive? I dunno. You think so?

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Are girls socialised to be hypersensitive? I dunno. You think so?

I suspect so. It is still socially acceptable for a woman to 'lose control' of their emotions, even irrationally or violently in some cases, for example.

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think jk rowling was smart to change her name.

Are girls socialised to be hypersensitive? I dunno. You think so?

I actually think they are and not just about insults. Lets be honest here... in this thread alone there are plenty of references made by posters which continue a certain stereotype considering men and women. Which doesn't face up to the realities of the world we live in. Instead its almost about keeping a stereotype of sexes from 60 years ago. Like this belief that its a majority of men that watch porn and a minority of women that do the same. Or that its a minority of women that enjoy violent shows like Dexter but that men are automatically interested.

The point is that people themselves encourage the sexes to behave a certain way. But speaking about minorities and majorities and using old fashioned terms/stereotypes we encourage those sexes to behave a certain way. In spite of the changes within our society which no longer really drive those beliefs to exist.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

I suspect so. It is still socially acceptable for a woman to 'lose control' of their emotions, even irrationally or violently in some cases, for example.

No it's not. Where you coming up with that?

If at work she gets fired. If at home she gets labelled hysterical and either isnt taken seriouslyor the white coats are called.

Unless you're referring to crying in public? Is that what you mean by losing control?

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

No it's not. Where you coming up with that?

If at work she gets fired. If at home she gets labelled hysterical and either isnt taken seriouslyor the white coats are called.

That's not true. She won't get fired unless it is very, very extreme behaviour. She may get labeled hysterical or someone may mutter that it's "her time of the month", but no white coats will be called. What a man can 'get away with' pales by comparison.

I think much of it harks back to a time when women were largely treated like children, and were considered to have no more control over their emotions than them. Conversely, men controlled their emotion because they they had to take charge - there's an interesting line from the Godfather, where Vito Corleone comments that "women and children can be careless, but not men."

For some reason, while we have supposedly changed, much of that attitude towards women and emotional control, or lack thereof, seems to have persisted. Whatever the reason for this, I do think that girls are certainly no encouraged to control their emotions like boys, in childhood, and may even be discouraged to exercise any control over them. All very interesting, but off topic.

metrovelvet

Its not that off topic if you're talking about dissociation and desensitisation.

The Godfather is about patriarchy at its most destructive, so I'll take that quote with a siberian sized grain of salt.

I still dont know what you mean by lose control? Hissy fits? Crying in public? Violent plate throwing?

Anyhow, I am not talking about lose control of emotions but the gap between experiencing them and cutting off from them. Experiencing them does not equate losing control. A telling leap on your part for sure.

This may not seem immediately important or relevant.

Porn is nearly impossible to define but the best I have heard so far is 'the representation of sex without emotion or accountability.'

If you see a film like 'In the Realm of the Senses' it has pornographic aspect to it, as do many other arthouse fims, but it doesn't classify as porn.

Watch for yourself and see what strikes you as different. The main one being a misandrist (arguably) ending. Close your eyes for it. It's not nice.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

The Godfather is about patriarchy at its most destructive, so I'll take that quote with a siberian sized grain of salt.

Well, I was describing a dated patriarchal attitude, oddly enough.

I still dont know what you mean by lose control? Hissy fits? Crying in public? Violent plate throwing?

Pretty much all of the above; although while violent plate throwing would be going too far without some sort of reaction, a woman slapping a man across the face or throwing a drink in it, would barely raise an eyebrow.

Anyhow, I am not talking about lose control of emotions but the gap between experiencing them and cutting off from them. Experiencing them does not equate losing control. A telling leap on your part for sure.

Oh, why do you say men do not experience them? You do know that controlling your emotions does not mean you don't feel them.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, I was describing a dated patriarchal attitude, oddly enough.

Pretty much all of the above; although while violent plate throwing would be going too far without some sort of reaction, a woman slapping a man across the face or throwing a drink in it, would barely raise an eyebrow.

Oh, why do you say men do not experience them? You do know that controlling your emotions does not mean you don't feel them.

A woman slapping a man in the face, a man slapping a woman - the reaction depends in context.

I didnt say men don't feel emotions. That's ridiculous.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

A woman slapping a man in the face, a man slapping a woman - the reaction depends in context.

Yet you cannot deny that a large part of that context is gender specific.

I didnt say men don't feel emotions. That's ridiculous.

Then what do you mean?

metrovelvet

I'm sure if the Irish public saw Maggie Thatcher get slapped across the face, by man or woman, there would be applause.

I'm sure if the Irish public saw English (I forget her first name -the soldier in the Abhu photo scandal) get slapped there would be applause.

I'm sure if the Irish public saw Mary Hearney get slapped there would be applause.

As for second question. Klaz seemed to suggest that men are encouraged to blow off, repress, take it on the chin...deragatory remarks. Take it like a man and all that.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

I'm sure if the Irish public saw Maggie Thatcher get slapped across the face, by man or woman, there would be applause.

I'm sure if the Irish public saw English (I forget her first name -the soldier in the Abhu photo scandal) get slapped there would be applause.

I'm sure if the Irish public saw Mary Hearney get slapped there would be applause.

No doubt, but how about the other 99.9% of cases where a woman is slapped across the face by a man as opposed to the opposite?

As for second question. Klaz seemed to suggest that men are encouraged to blow off, repress, take it on the chin...deragatory remarks. Take it like a man and all that.

We are in general, although doubly so if from a woman.

metrovelvet

As I said I dont think the Irish public would give a damn who slapped these women, man or woman.

But I'm not sure violence is always about losing control of your feelings, so I'm not sure how it ties in with what your saying.