Quote from: Sacrosanct;799002Sorry, you're wrong.  If anyone's using spurious definitions, it would be you.  Heck, you're even trying to hand wave away part of what that word means right above by your strawman of "as if they are equally bad".  Equality of those words isn't relevant, and isn't what the definition is trying to imply.

"Murder, arson, and jaywalking" is a common rhetorical tactic (I'm sure there is a "fallacy" for it as well, but I'm not sure what it's name is, I don't think it's "false equivalency", but it's certainly an implied equivalency). "Violence" (bad), "discrimination" (bad), denigration (vague as all get out but it sure sounds bad), and "sexual objectification" (disputed within and without academia and feminism) are presented as elements of the same set. The natural inference is that they are all equally immoral. People's brains will automatically make this association; that's why the rhetorical tactic works.

QuoteNot only is the definition I used the common definition used by most sociological academia, but it also the official definition of the Macquarie Dictionary, which is the dictionary that is used as the official dictionary of Australian courts.

It's not some "radfem" definition I used for my own biased purposes.  It's the commonly accepted definition.

You say something, I look into it.

The first thing I see is that this is a recent redefinition (2012) triggered by Julia Gillard's misogyny speech against Tony Abbott. I also see that it is not a universally approved of redefinition within Australia:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/macquarie-dictionary-widens-definition-of-misogyny-after-julia-gillards-putdown-of-tony-abbott/story-fncw91kq-1226498914785?nk=22bd158fd55f835dfb70c65ab7d33b52

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/17/julia-gillard-australia-misogyny-dictionary

It's also a contested definition among dictionaries (link):

Quote from: Australian Financial ReviewThe widening will bring Macquarie closer to definitions from Oxford and dictionary.com while re-energising Ms Gillard’s backers.

But it will put Macquarie at odds with at least six other major dictionaries which define misogyny as purely a hatred of women.

The change will also enrage critics who claim the term is linked closely with theories of feminism. It is also likely to rekindle the debate about *literal versus deconstructivist interpretations of language.

The second thing I see is that Macquarie is behind a paywall, so I can't get to their definition. You posted this:

"Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women."

Is this copy/paste from Macquarie?

It's considerably more aggressive a definition that either Oxford (Dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women: she felt she was struggling against thinly disguised misogyny) and dictionary.com (hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women), and different from the proposed change to Macquarie (hatred of women PLUS entrenched prejudices against women (as opposed to visceral hatred). Oxford adds "ingrained prejudice", dictionary.com "dislike or mistrust", the definition you put forth talks about manifestations, none of which necessarily include hatred or dislike. Sexual discrimination can originate in a protective impulse ("women are delicate flowers"), denigration is unclear about whether it means as a group or whether denigrating individual women counts ("women are stupid" vs. "Sarah Palin is stupid", or from the all-woman afternoon talk show I was subjected to while having new tires installed "Kim Kardashian is a bad mother because of her booty photo"), violence can be motivated by plenty of emotions other than hatred or dislike (some people are just controlling pricks, whether that be of a spouse, children, or employees), and sexual objectification is a disputed concept in and out of academia.

All of which ignores that other dictionaries have not followed suit in editing their definitions.

You're using a definition used by some, not most, sociological academia, specifically the non-scientific critical-essay writing post-modern fundamentalist elements who seem to think saying something makes it true, rather than engaging in science and deriving hypotheses from their conjectures and putting them to the test and seeing if the world seems to empirically be in accord with their worldview, because they are actually ideologues, not scientists.

You're also using a redefinition triggered by politics, which makes it inherently suspect because one could easily infer that it was done for political purposes rather than due to changing usage, which is what the dictionary has been accused of by some Australians, which ultimately undermines its authority, especially its legal authority.

Quote from: apparition13;798999...the de-legitimization of class identity as central to "privilege". There is a lot wrong with Marx, eschatological utopianism being the biggest I'd say, but identifying wealth, power, and influence, privilege, as the natural enemy of progressivism wasn't one of them. Nothing could be more comforting to penthouse bankers or internet millionaires than seeing progressives squabbling about identity politics rather than focusing their (progressives) ire on them (those with wealth and power).

The wealthy and powerful have often been 'progressive' - seeking social change. But I would agree with you that cultural Marxism, the SJW ideology, is very very useful to the capitalists. It deligitimises class-based dissent, it destroys 'working class' as a metric of resistance, it allows for guilt-free wealth inequality - and thus massive widening of wealth inequality.

I've said this (politely) to academic cultural Marxists at my University staff seminars - you are supposedly attacking capitalism, but the capitalists love this stuff you're coming up with. It suits them just fine.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;799002The really hilarious thing is you accusing me of being a SJW.  How many posts, over how many years, have I expressed my disdain for that group?  Hell, just look at my user title for God's sake.

Well, I think you are worse than them. I'm sure the Australian legal system (is misogyny illegal now?) is just as controlled by cultural Marxists as the British one. They've been in control since at least the 1990s, and they are perfectly capable of rewriting definitions. Go read '1984', and stop accepting whatever the Ministry of Truth puts out this week.

"Misogyny" means "Hates Women", that's what it means, a direct translation. It can't mean anything else.

Going to have to leave this now.

Quote from: apparition13;799058You say something, I look into it.

The first thing I see is that this is a recent redefinition (2012) triggered by Julia Gillard's misogyny speech against Tony Abbott...
(snip)
 

Thanks for doing the research. I could say this proves how full of shit Sacrosanct is, but it seems a lot sadder than that - that he actually thinks he is opposing the SJWS while in fact buying in completely to their narrative frame.

So many people participate in the Auto da fe, usually unwittingly.

Feminism has become the church, and Social Justice it's inquisition.  Sacrosanct is merely shouting along with the mob, hoping he will not be called to account for his thoughtcrimes, his heresies, in the next purging.

Quote from: S'mon;799088Well, I think you are worse than them. I'm sure the Australian legal system (is misogyny illegal now?) is just as controlled by cultural Marxists as the British one. They've been in control since at least the 1990s, and they are perfectly capable of rewriting definitions. Go read '1984', and stop accepting whatever the Ministry of Truth puts out this week.

"Misogyny" means "Hates Women", that's what it means, a direct translation. It can't mean anything else.

Going to have to leave this now.

Quote from: S'mon;799090Thanks for doing the research. I could say this proves how full of shit Sacrosanct is, but it seems a lot sadder than that - that he actually thinks he is opposing the SJWS while in fact buying in completely to their narrative frame.

Please, keep posting.  Because each time you do, you're just showing how much extreme you are.  It's starting to get pretty comical actually.

You're the one who decide to (not once, but twice) post pictures of women involved as if their physical appearance mattered to the context of this whole GG thing.  Do you know what that's called when you judge somebody based on their looks when their looks aren't relevant?  Objectifying.  Do you know what it is called when you attack someone on their looks without merit?  Denigration.  And do you know what it is when you hold women to a separate standard than men when doing the above?  Misogyny.  Pretty much the entire educated world agrees on this.  If you want a different definition?  Fine.

Quotemi·sog·y·ny
məˈsäjənē/
noun
noun: misogyny

    dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.

Those three things you did pretty much easily fall under this definition.  Otherwise I'd at least hope you'd hold the same standards to men.  Put your money where your mouth is and post a picture of you, and let people do just like you're doing and judge the merit of your worth to your cause based on your appearance.

So you keep going on with your refusal to accept normal widely accepted definitions and labeling of people who don't agree with your extreme position as radicals themselves.  Like I said it's the exact same thing they do.  You are no different than them in integrity or methods.  As much as I think people like Ettin are dirtbags for engaging in this bullshit, I think you're just the same.  And all you're doing is giving them more fuel, and you're too stupid to even realize it, even after people other than myself have pointed this out to you.

Quote from: S'mon;799088Well, I think you are worse than them.

Quote from: Spike;799094So many people participate in the Auto da fe, usually unwittingly.

Feminism has become the church, and Social Justice it's inquisition.  Sacrosanct is merely shouting along with the mob, hoping he will not be called to account for his thoughtcrimes, his heresies, in the next purging.

Do you two notice that you are estranging Sacrosanct?

I have a quote for you, from apparition13:
"Nothing could be more comforting to penthouse bankers or internet millionaires than seeing progressives squabbling about identity politics rather than focusing their (progressives) ire on them (those with wealth and power)."
Now I am looking at your squabbling.
Just_don't_do_it, ok?
Please?

And Sacrosanct, the impression I've gotten from you is that you are better than this squabbling.
How trustworthy is your sources? Do they match other sources?
Check them: is apparition13 correct? or not?
Doublecheck.

My own sources is much what people say and refer to, but if anyone asks me to refer to anything, I often can't link, making my arguments easily refuted, which is ok, since I may be wrong anyway.
That is something I learned on this site, of all places. ^_^

EDIT:
No, I do not want people to be docile and therefor not squabble, then i'd rather take some squabbling.
Questioning things is good too, but the situation here is obvious to most if not all, so why keep it going?

I'm tired, why do I keep coming back to this thread, I should be posting about games ...

It's pretty simple. When you turn a discussion that's not related to fashion or attractiveness into a discussion that's about how good a woman looks, you are being a misogynist.

Quote from: Catelf;799097Do you two notice that you are estranging Sacrosanct?

I have a quote for you, from apparition13:
"Nothing could be more comforting to penthouse bankers or internet millionaires than seeing progressives squabbling about identity politics rather than focusing their (progressives) ire on them (those with wealth and power)."
Now I am looking at your squabbling.
Just_don't_do_it, ok?
Please?

I'm sorry: have I somehow given you the impression I view myself as a Progressive?  Or that I respond to shaming language?

As long as that rich person in the penthouse had not fuck over people I am fine with him/her being so rich.  It is only those that fuck over millions for their own personal gain that I have a issue with.  Mainly they are fucking over millions part.

Quote from: Spike;799094So many people participate in the Auto da fe, usually unwittingly.

Feminism has become the church, and Social Justice it's inquisition.  Sacrosanct is merely shouting along with the mob, hoping he will not be called to account for his thoughtcrimes, his heresies, in the next purging.

That's much what it looks like to me.  I'm glad GG is stepping up to the plate to eat the hurt of shutting this sadistic bullshit down.

Quote from: Snowman0147;799111As long as that rich person in the penthouse had not fuck over people I am fine with him/her being so rich.  It is only those that fuck over millions for their own personal gain that I have a issue with.  Mainly they are fucking over millions part.

Same; I don't give two fat damns how large people in Aspen are living as long as long as everyone else is getting by.  It's the "everyone else getting by" part that seems busted right now.

Quote from: Spike;799105I'm sorry: have I somehow given you the impression I view myself as a Progressive?  Or that I respond to shaming language?

Sorry, my mistake.

QuoteSo you keep going on with your refusal to accept normal widely accepted definitions and labeling of people who don't agree with your extreme position as radicals themselves.  Like I said it's the exact same thing they do.  You are no different than them in integrity or methods.  As much as I think people like Ettin are dirtbags for engaging in this bullshit, I think you're just the same.  And all you're doing is giving them more fuel, and you're too stupid to even realize it, even after people other than myself have pointed this out to you.

Yo, mate, is this:

"Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women."

the definition you originally used, from Macquarie or not? Because the one you just quoted is from Oxford.

Actually nevermind, it's from wikipedia, from one or both of these books published by Routledge in 2000:

^ Kramarae, Cheris (2000). Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women. New York: Routledge. pp. 1374–1377. ISBN 0-415-92088-4.

^ a b c d Clack, Beverley (1999). Misogyny in the Western Philosophical Tradition: A Reader. New York: Routledge. pp. 95–241. ISBN 0415921821.

For such a widely accepted definition, it's weird I get less than 100 google hits when I search for the full phrase.

And you keep saying "widely accepted". Widely accepted doesn't mean universally accepted, it doesn't mean uncontested, it doesn't even mean accepted by a plurality, let alone a majority. Widely accepted isn't a "win" button.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;799096You're the one who decide to (not once, but twice) post pictures of women involved as if their physical appearance mattered to the context of this whole GG thing.  Do you know what that's called when you judge somebody based on their looks when their looks aren't relevant?  Objectifying.  Do you know what it is called when you attack someone on their looks without merit?  Denigration.  And do you know what it is when you hold women to a separate standard than men when doing the above?  Misogyny.  Pretty much the entire educated world agrees on this.  If you want a different definition?  Fine.

Those three things you did pretty much easily fall under this definition.  Otherwise I'd at least hope you'd hold the same standards to men.  Put your money where your mouth is and post a picture of you, and let people do just like you're doing and judge the merit of your worth to your cause based on your appearance.

What is with your obsession with counting coup on S'mon by bapping on the noggin with the misogynist! stick? You posted something, he posted something, each misunderstood the other, and you keep on picking at it. It's just another internet misunderstanding, primate up and get over it.

Quote from: Catelf;799004Why taking up the corruption in journalism now?

Honestly?
The ability to criticize and reform it seems better at this moment, with a sparking point, mass censorship, Streisand Effect, and mass condemnation of unethical practices, than before.
Opportunity has presented itself, to reform something that's been seen as corrupt for a very long time.

QuoteI mean, if it is about biased reviews, I doubt that totally objective reviews is possible, so what is the point there?

It's not just about reviews; I also don't want clickbait articles, false allegations presented as gospel truth, and straight up slandering of political rivals (in a non-political forum), and one-sided stories.

Totally objective reviews may not be possible, but either recusing oneself from a story, or disclosing potential conflicts of interest, should not be an onerous requirement on the part of the reporter.

Quote from: Catelf;799028Just pointing out this specifically:
Saying "Man up" to a man is not automatically sexist.

Yes, it actually is. It's just an example of "beneficial sexism", like opening a door for a lady, or pulling out a chair. Unlike "oppressive sexism" which is more the "make me a sammich!" (or worse) type.