Monday, June 28, 2010

BEHOLD SEXISM-IN-ACTION: When MEN do it, it's called Telling The Truth about Women. When WOMEN do it, it's called "Being a Misandrist" ... go figure

 [image is from here]

[Please also see the follow-up post to this one, SEXISM-IN-ACTION, Part 2, by clicking *here*]

I chose this image because it speaks to a truth about misogyny and sexism: they are always social phenomena. They are never individual-impacting only. And it takes many men to support sexism for it to exist. Men's views of women EXIST as truth. Even when they are SEXIST. Women's truths about men are never debated by men as rational views of reality. Men systematically and collectively deny women's realities even EXIST.

Here's the deal, folks. Het guys who have been turned away by a heterosexual woman get together to consider how psychotic she is. Women who have been turned away by a man get to wonder "What did I do wrong?"

This is social reality. This is patriarchal reality. This is sexism and misogyny.

But what if the woman DOESN'T ask this of herself, and, instead, draws the conclusion, accurately, that the guy is sexist and not worth her time and energy? Then, according the "rejected" het man, she's psychotic. Het men cannot even imagine why it might be that a woman would cut off contact with them when they are sexist in unconscious ways, even while men do it to women all the damn time without calling EACH OTHER psychotic.

Het men make it a homosocial practice to gather and conspire to mischaracterise women in misogynistic ways, that the men mistake as "telling the truth about her". They, as men, have the power to name reality. So when two or more of them gather and agree about "what a woman is", then "she is it", according to them. Not subjectively; not from their own possibly sexist point of view. It becomes objective TRUTH (to them). And when the het men are challenged on their sexism, on their misogyny, for doing exactly what is described above and evidenced below, they are likely to want to silence the critic rather than learn more about themselves.

So, here we have a het man who goes on his Facebook page to misogynistically (mis)characterise a woman as... well... you'll see. And a woman comes over to engage him in discussion about his sexist behavior. And a guy comes by to concur with him--to compare notes, and to shore up their similarly misogynistic conclusions--conclusions they'd NEVER draw about any HET MEN who do what the woman does who they are publicly criticising. And when this woman calls him out, he ignores her. What do you call that? I call it sexism and misogyny. And when a male, me, comes to the site to call out their sexism, what does the het man do with that? He purges it from "reality". He censors out that perspective because as a male, I too have the power to name reality, so he needs to make my reality "disappear".

Let's ALL have a looksee, shall we? (And note the updates at the end.)

Here's the URL, and we may note which comments have since been deleted:
http://www.facebook.com/andraewilliams?v=wall&story_fbid=130375700326342

This is some basic public information about the man whose Facebook page we are about to visit. I've edited out his birthday and home city, as it's not relevant. He's in his late twenties, though.

Relationship Status:
Single
Political Views:
Libconserveralative
Religious Views:
Ateu

Andrão Brasileiro Fanático

Andrão Brasileiro Fanático is thankful for all the SANE women out there...in the midst of all the crazies with bipolar tendencies, you all are a breath of fresh air...

Friday at 10:18pm · · 
2 people like this.

Angela Fogle
How U know I was bi-polar...lol I'm sane,because Geminis get a pass!
Friday at 10:46pm ·

Andrão Brasileiro Fanático
You are definitely sane...lol..I was talking about some crazy black ultra feminist chick who sent ME a friend request a few days ago, started flirting with me thru PM, telling me she hasnt had sex in 18 months and wanted me to "mow her lawn", and then deleted and blocked me today (for what, i do not know)...

LOL...now what would you call that? She's a special case isn't she?
Friday at 11:10pm ·

Angela Fogle
lmao...U & your women...tell her come holla @ U after 4yrs...smh She'll add u again...she's going through one of her celibate mood...give her 5dys..lol
Saturday at 1:34am ·

Mo B Smith
Y THANK YOU "WINK". LOL
Saturday at 2:01am ·

Channel Coates
Mow her lawn? lol! OMG!
Saturday at 9:38am ·

Andrão Brasileiro Fanático
@Angela - She can go to hell for all I care..:)

@Mo - You're welcome..:)

@Channel - Yeah..I'm in the lawncare business so she was trying to make a sexual joke (I don't mow lawns though)...
Saturday at 9:47am ·

Terry L. Shed
@ Andrao - I think that same woman (nameless) did the same one to me.
Saturday at 10:47am ·

Terry L. Shed
*thing not one...does her initals start with an "A"? LOL....Never mind cus I know it does. LOL.
Saturday at 10:48am ·

Angela Fogle
Drae there is no such place as hell...remember??? luv yah!
Saturday at 11:44am ·

Nicki Rivers
Don't guys do this to women all the time? Don't guys disappear on women? Don't guys suddenly stop talking to a woman they've met for no reason? In fact a dude I'd met back in Feb, was talking up a storm to me, saying all these things, and then suddenly he disappeared like a puff of smoke for no reason. In fact women make up names for dudes who act like this. They call them dream weavers, ghosts, etc... Guys do this to women ALL the time, and women spend their time calling and wondering what happened with the guy, is he dead, did he get abducted by aliens? Why hasn't he called? I didn't do any of that. I just shrugged it off and went about my business. I figured this guy did me a favor by showing his colors on the phone, (since we hadn't actually met) and I was better off.
Every one of my gf's have a guy 'ghost' story. Why is it when dudes act like this with women, women sort of accept it as a guy running his usual game'. But on the rare occasion that a guy is on the receiving end of this type of treatment from a woman, the woman has to be mentally unstable?
So are dudes who meet women and disappear on them for no reason bipolar, mentally unstable? Instead of the 'He's just not that into you' excuse? 

Andrão Brasileiro Fanático
@Angela - Figure of speech hon...figure of speech...

@Terry - Why leave her name out? Name the broad dude...her REAL name is [name omitted by me, Julian], but her facebook names are AGANJU AXE, and [name omitted by me, Julian]. Another black atheist friend of mine named DaRohn Sercey warned me about her, when her pic showed up in his newsfeed that I added her. He told "watch out, because she's crazy", but I gave her the benefit of the doubt, because I don't like judging people without having good reason to do so...but he was right...lol..
Saturday at 5:28pm ·

Andrão Brasileiro Fanático
@Nicki - Mabe they are mentally unstable and or bipolar....I don't use the latter term in passing. The woman I am referring has EXTREME highs, and EXTREME lows..trust me. Like a light switch..

@Paulette - You're welcome...:)
Saturday at 5:30pm ·

Terry L. Shed
Yup...that's her. I had been seeing her post for a while. They were kinda...outragous...(even about how she a dick expert...but yet is celebaite)I took it for what it was worth...every body IS intilted to their opinion. I rant about religon on my page all the time but I don't discourage conversation and dialouge; how else you supposed to learn? Plus, I though it was just a phase and she didn't 'really' mean half the stuff she posted and was just upset at someting....but nobody is pissed at the male gender for 3-4 months stright to the point you want them to die...like seriously die! lol. She posted a status about her not being about to eat becasue some guy/guys made her upset. I commented saying she Shouldn't let people get her that upset. ...no response. Later, she posted a comment about All men being toxic and trouble and just dogging men to the fulliest on Facebook and I comment saying Wait...what exactly did "I" do, that's not a fair statement (...I should have known better). She responed saying Guys speak for me and I need to holla at them...and leave her alone! and deleted me. I later read her blogs and realized that becasue I am in fact a man and I questioned/challenged her opinon on her Facebook page is the reason she delted me. Speaking with extensive knowledge in psychology...when I further read her blogs it was clear that she does in fact have some issues. I have a good idea 'why' it's that way...but withought having the oppurtunity to talk to her...I can only speculate.

Aganue Axe...shm.
Saturday at 7:02pm ·

Nicki Rivers
@ Terry " rant about religon on my page all the time but I don't discourage conversation and dialouge; how else you supposed to learn? I later read her blogs and realized that becasue I am in fact a man and I questioned/challenged her opinon on her Facebook page is the reason she delted me."

Why did you feel the need to go on 'her page' and question and challenge ' her views especially after you've read 'her stance?' Do you have a right to expect other people to treat their facebook viewpoints the way you treat yours? Do you feel because you 'Are in fact a man' that you are entitled to challenging 'her viewpoints? Would you go on a Christian's person's page and question their views about their beliefs after they've already made it clear that what they believe isn't up for debate? Isn't that disrespectful to someone to not respect their right to their own viewpoints on their own FB page? Why feel the need to 'challenge them in the first place? Why not just let it go and be with like minded people?

Andrão Brasileiro Fanático
And that's why she's crazy...lol...She wrote on one of her notes that "her beliefs are NOT up for debate"...meaning she's a hard-headed man hater who thinks her beliefs are gospel and any man who tries to talk her out of them is a "sexist pig"...

Definitely some SERIOUS issues here...poor thing. lol.

Nicki Rivers Andrao' "And that's why she's crazy...lol...She wrote on one of her notes that "her beliefs are NOT up for debate"...meaning she's a hard-headed man hater who thinks her beliefs are gospel and any man who tries to talk her out of them is a "sexist pig"...

Hmmm This is how 'you' choose to interpret her saying, "her beliefs are not up for debate"', but does your interpretation of her saying this make what 'you think', "The Gospel" truth? or is this simply your opinion your interpretation of how 'you' chose to take what she said? Do I have to agree with your thoughts here? If I don't agree with 'your opinion/interpretation of 'My beliefs are not up for debate', are you going to say I'm crazy and all of this other stuff about me as well?
I have beliefs/standards/values that are not up for debate. Does what someone believe in (if it differs from our own beliefs/opinion) have to be up for debate? Who made that rule?

What I'm getting is that you are angry because she suddenly deleted and blocked you. (You don't really know why she did it) so you're looking to soothe your hurt feelings by putting her down. Other guys from what I've read had warned you about her because they were defriended as well. But rather than question the reasons why they were defriended, you automatically assume it's because this person, must be crazy because of course none of the other guys who were defriended couuld possibly be at fault They were just being the usual guys....Interesting.

Andrão Brasileiro Fanático
Nicki..do you know the person we are speaking about?

Secondly, I am not angry that she deleted me....amused is the better term here..I have don't even know WHY I was deleted...and I know she is a "man-hater" because I am like the umpteenth guy she has deleted...not to mention she hates Michael Eric Dyson, hates rappers and rap music, hates this, hates that...

If you don't know this women, you shouldn't be so quick to defend her. 

Nicki Rivers
@Andrao, you and I share a mutual friend [name deleted by me, Julian] who is friends with Agjanu so I was able to look at her page through [name deleted] because I'm not blocked. But why aren't you answering any specific questions I asked you? Why are you choosing to say my viewpoints are me 'defending her'? That's interesting. Rather than looking at this from another perspective, you are attempting to tell me what "I shouldn't be doing where she is concerned' and that my viewpoints simply amount to me 'defending her'. Hmmm. Do you think that when women delete multiple men from their pages, that makes them a man hater? Could it be that they dislike the 'behavior' and not the 'man'? Does everyone have to like Michael Eric Dyson? Heck people don't like President Obama. Michael Eric Dyson doesn't like Bill Cosby, does that make him a 'man hater?

When women speak out against the things men do on a regular basis that disparages women that men don't even realize that makes them a man hater?
Does it make men a woman hater when they mistreat women? I'm asking questions that aren't getting answered.

Andrão Brasileiro Fanático
Now, if I was Aganju, and you were a man, and you came to my page with this type of interrogating, you would have been blocked hours ago. But, since I am a mature adult, who can dish out AND take criticism, I will answer your questions as succinctly as I can.

You asked alot of questions above, and some of them sound rhetorical..please specify what exactly it is you are asking me.

Go.
Saturday at 8:28pm ·

Nicki Rivers
Andrao wrote "you came to my page with this type of interrogating"

You choose to view my questions as interrogating you? lol I am asking you questions and you say I am interrogating and criticizing you. Yet you call Aganju names, what is that about? Aren't you doing the exact same thing you are accusing her of doing to you?

I am respectfully communicating with you. I'm not callling you names or any of that. Yet you feel as though I'm critiquing you and interrogating you. Why is that? Was I supposed to fall in line with 'your way' of thinking because you said so? Are women not allowed to disagree with your opinion or even share other thoughts that differ from yours?

At any rate, here are the questions again since you asked for specifics which I'd already asked. You don't have to answer them if you don't want to since you're feeling interrogated and criticized. I'm not making you feel this way, these feelings are strictly your own. I'm communicating with you, engaging in dialogue attempting to ask question that delve deeper and get you to think and see other sides of issues. All you want to do is focus on 'your anger' or amusement (as you said) about what Agjanu did to you personally.

1. are dudes who meet women and disappear on them for no reason bipolar, mentally unstable? ( I think you briefly answered, but didn't elaborate as to why you thought this).
2 Isn't that disrespectful to someone to not respect their right to their own viewpoints on their own FB page?
3. Do you think that when women delete multiple men from their pages, that makes them a man hater?
4. Does everyone have to like Michael Eric Dyson?
5. When women speak out against the things men do on a regular basis that disparages women that men don't even realize that makes them a man hater?
6. Does it make men a woman hater when they mistreat women?
7. but does your interpretation of her saying this make what 'you think', "The Gospel" truth?
8. Do I have to agree with your thoughts here?
9. Does what someone believe in (if it differs from our own beliefs/opinion) have to be up for debate? Who made that rule?
Saturday at 9:15pm · · 1 person

Andrão Brasileiro Fanático
If you insist on calling me "angry", this conversation is over. Ok? One thing I do not tolerate is presumptuous people who want to TELL me how I'm feeling. I am not angry at all this, I was just having a good laugh with my facebook friends by posting this status.

Now to your questions:

1) Yes, I did answer this question. I said they MAYBE mentally unstable. Bipolar? Not necessarily, because that is a whole other can of worms. Men who do that are immature males who can't respectfully tell a woman why he is no longer interested, but instead runs away like a child. And men who do this usually have something to hide. Maybe their girlfriend or wife caught them soliciting other women, and he cut the woman off cold turkey to soothe the feelings of the wife/gf. Either way, he is a fool.

2) Yes, it is disrespectful. Your own viewpoints are your own, and your facebook page is your domain. But as Terry Shed said above, you can have your viewpoints and STILL welcome a conversation or a dialogue about them. I am an atheist, and Christians come here daily to debate with me about my views. I welcome it, respectfully, knowing that they are attempting to change my mind. I don't block them, ban them, and delete them from my page for even ATTEMPTING a dialogue. Do you see the difference here with what you are talking about and what this "person" I referred to in my status did/does?

3) It depends on the reasoning. If she deletes them because they are stalking her, degrading her, belittling her, etc, then ofcourse not. But if she is deleting them because they attempt to make conversation about her extreme views, then yes, I could make a case for her being a misandrist. Maybe the "man-hater" term is too much, I accept that, but she isn't doing ANYTHING to allay my suspicions about her being this way, based on her behaviour.

4) No. Did I say everyone has to "like" him?

5) No. It is not about women speaking about men doing things that disparage women. I do that on a regular basis as well...I have two sisters, plenty of nieces, and god daughters, and I want them to grow up in a world where they are treated equal to men. But it is the WAY a woman speaks out about misogyny that makes the difference. You can do that in a way that is non-combative. Some haven't mastered that art.

6) Yes, just as it makes a person an animal hater if they are skinning cats, beating dogs, and doing other sadistic things to animals. Men who have a patterned behaviour of mistreating women are definitely misogynistic...their history betrays them.

7) No.

8) If that was a requisite for a person being on my page, again, you would have been blocked an hour ago. The fact that you haven't, already answers this question.

9) No, but it helps to be open-minded, don't you think? If a person is so stuck in their ways and their beliefs, that they won't even LISTEN to an alternative to see if there is a better way, is that a healthy way for someone to live their life?
Saturday at 9:39pm ·

Nicki Rivers
This to me sounds like a case of 'potcalling'. (pot calling the kettle black) or in your case, it's ok for you to talk about someone but they can't do it to you. Or you can dish it out but not take it. And I did acknowledge that you said you are 'amused and not angry as you said. Though imo (notice the disclaimer), your post doesn't come across as someone who is amused. But again maybe people show their amusement in different ways. How is it that you can make a judgement/critique about" what you think" Aganju is feeling, but you get upset when someone tells you how 'they think you feel'?

Andrao wrote: "" One thing I do not tolerate is presumptuous people who want to TELL me how I'm feeling".

Andrao posted the below comments in reference to Agjanu's character and about how 'he thinks 'she feels':

" The woman I am referring has EXTREME highs, and EXTREME lows..trust me. Like a light switch.. ".in the midst of all the crazies with bipolar tendencies,...I was talking about some crazy black ultra feminist chick...Name the broad dude..."And that's why she's crazy...lol."..." I know she is a "man-hater"...meaning she's a hard-headed man hater who thinks her beliefs are gospel and any man who tries to talk her out of them is a "sexist pig"...Definitely some SERIOUS issues here...poor thing. lol.
Saturday at 9:48pm · · 1 person
 
Andrão Brasileiro Fanático
Andrão Brasileiro Fanático
LOL..ok Nicki, you clearly are only here because what I said about this woman offended you and you are here defending her honour. You have made your point. I have answered your questions and if you have nothing further to say, then thanks for stopping by.

Have a great day.
Saturday at 9:53pm ·

Nicki Rivers
I read your replies to the questions I ask. I think the bottom line is we can't dictate to others how we think they should run their facebook page based on how we run ours, anymore than we can dictate to others how they run their household based on how we run ours.
Maybe she treats her facebook page like a sort of public diary, a place tthat allows her to vent and she doesn't welcome other folks opinions on it. That's her right. It's not others right to try to boss over how she chooses to run her page. If she wants to use her page as her personal venting ground then dudes have to accept it and go someplace else.
And since you've mentioned blocking me twice now, you can go ahead. It won't hurt my feelings, and I won't be venting about it on my fb page lol because it ain't that serious. After all, we're not even FB friends. I'll just shrug my shoulders and move on. After all you have a right to block whomever you want just as I do.
Later dude.
Saturday at 9:54pm ·

Nicki Rivers
Andrao "You have made your point"
Hahaha, my work here is done. lol. ;)
Laters..
Saturday at 9:55pm ·

Andrão Brasileiro Fanático
Andrão Brasileiro Fanático
I don't block people from my page. Never have. I wasn't insinuating that I wanted to block you.
Saturday at 9:56pm ·

Terry L. Shed
@ Nikki – ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTONS

Q.1) “Why do you feel the need to go on ‘her page’ and question and challenge her views especially after you’ve read her stance?”
A.) I think you may have misread what I said. I said “I LATER” read her blogs or her ‘stance’ on how she felt only after the fact of her deleting me. (You can still read her blogs on her page under “BOX”. Furthermore, I felt I could go on her page and question and challenge her views because she accepted me as a friend. I can’t think of anything else I would do. Also, I felt the need to go on her page and question and challenge her views because I am a very outspoken person. You should know that I didn’t question her view ONLY until when what she said affect me that men were “trouble and toxic”. True, it didn’t affect me personally, but I think the question I asked was a legitimate question as into how and if it did affect me personally…since her view point was such a broad (not to mention negative) comment towards men. Does that answer you question?

Q.2) “Do you have a right to expect other people to treat their Facebook viewpoints the way you treat your?”
A.) Yes, I do have a right to expect other people to treat their Facebook viewpoints the way I treat mines. I have a right to expect of a person what they give me until they show me differently. If I don’t have any thing to go off of, then I’d have to expect that her view points are like mines or fitting to the best of my ability. Furthermore, the expectations I had about her that lead me to believe her view points were like mines were that she was 1) black, 2) a black single, 3) a black single atheist, 4) black single educated atheist. Based off those characteristics alone (alone as in not yet having the opportunity to have a conversation with her), yes, I had the right to assume she treated her Facebook the way I treat mines. Does that answer your question?

Q.3) “Do you feel because you are in fact a male that you are entitled to challenging her viewpoints”
A.) No, I don’t feel because I am in fact a male that I am entitled to challenge her view points; it has noting to do with being a male. I feel that I am in fact a person who has opinions and a thirst for understanding and believe in common dialogue in order to gain knowledge I am therefore entitled to challenge her viewpoints. Furthermore, since I am a person with an opinion, I also have a concious and feelings. The fact that her comment was directed towards males negatively in general gave me the right to challenge her view point. Also, I only challenged it, again, AFTER the question was general enough to involve my questioning. Does that answer your question?

Q.4) Would you go on a Christian’s person page and question their views about their beliefs after they’ve already made it clear that what they believe isn’t up for debate?”
A.) Yes, I would go on a Christian’s person’s page and question their views about their beliefs after they’ve already made it clear that what they believe isn’t up for debate. As a matter of fact I do. I’m one of the outspokenness person when it comes to religion…not just Christianity. For example, when a theist says something like, “Thank god”…I’ll more than likely let that go. But when a theist makes an outlandish claim that doesn’t hold water or promotes violence and discrimination or any other ideology that I think is harmful to mankind, yes, I challenge their viewpoints as well as their belief and logic. Does that answer your question?

Q.5) “Isn’t that disrespectful to someone to not respect their right to their own viewpoints on their own Facebook page”
A.) No, it is not disrespectful to someone to not respect their right to their own viewpoints on their own Facebook page. Facebook is an open form to the public for networking where you can add or delete people. If I’m added to someone’s page and have full access to comment ect., if that person says something that I don’t agree with I have a right to my voice my opinion in opposition…even if that person doesn’t wish to hear my opinions. Does that answer your question?

Q.6) “Why fell the need to challenge them in the first place?”
A. The need felt to challenge anyone who says something that I may not agree or understand is to gain and promote understanding and information. Does that answer your question?

Q.7) “Why not just let it go and be with like minded people?”
A. Being with likeminded people is not growing me as a person. This is one of the many reasons I am against religion. It doesn’t profit me to talk to people who think and fell like me other than comfort. I prefer to surround myself around different people with different ideas and perspectives. Again, not only does it better me…but if I’m wrong about my observations or lack a certain perspective to an issue, a more versatile surrounding can provide me with that information and insight. Does that answer your question?
Saturday at 11:17pm ·

Terry L. Shed
.....I'll take your lack of response as a "yes, that answered my questions".
Yesterday at 9:40am ·

Andrão Brasileiro Fanático
Andrão Brasileiro Fanático
She's not on my friends list, so she wont get the notification..
Yesterday at 10:41am ·

Terry L. Shed
Terry L. Shed
1) ...she deleted you too!? SMH. 2) you mean I made an effort and typed those long drawn out answers to her questoins and she not gone get it? Pshhh. I'm done. LOL.
Yesterday at 11:36am ·

Andrão Brasileiro Fanático
Andrão Brasileiro Fanático
LOL..no..I leave my page open so that people who are not on my friends list can comment...she was just browsing and saw my page and decided to comment...she was never on my list.
Yesterday at 11:45am ·

Julian Real
@Andrao, and also to Terry,

I'm going to posit a hypothetical, for the purposes of making a few points. Bear with me.

Let's say, hypothetically, that you are both unconsciously sexist and at times misogynistic, but are unwilling to own this because of your pathologically male supremacist egos.

Now, IF this were the case, and were I a woman interested in men who weren't pathologically sexist, I'd cut you both out of my life ASAP, because of the DEGREES to which you demonstrate this sexism and/or misogyny.

IF I interpreted you, Andrao, to be attempting to show Nicki the door, albeit politely, and name that as typically sexist behavior--silencing, let's say and ignoring a woman's speech addressed politely to you--would you welcome me taking that assessment elsewhere on Facebook and letting people know to beware of both you and Terry, for behaving in sexist and/or misogynistic ways?

IF you were both behaving like guys who had their egos wounded, and now need to make sure all the men out there don't get similarly bruised, would you welcome me taking that TRUTH elsewhere, and presenting it as such--not as a conclusion based on subjectivity, but as objective fact?

IF you both were to come together in a social space and compare your very subjective notes, your stories about a woman, not owning your own sexist biases at all, would that warrant anyone, woman or man, coming here to point that out to you? Would you see that as serving your emotional and spiritual growth, and expanding your political consciousness?

And when and if a WOMAN were to come here and point this out, IF you blew by her in your discussion with a MAN, would you welcome someone else coming here to point out that you did it--not from my subjective view--were it me who came here to point it out--but as objective fact?

Might "a reasonable, sane, politically astute person" conclude, were you to do such things, that if a man shows that a woman isn't worthy of response, that such ignoring of said woman was sexist and possibly an indicator of some unchecked deeply held hostility towards women?

Before drawing such conclusions, I'll ask you, Andrao:

Why didn't you respond to Nikki when she asked the questions THE FIRST TIME? What part of her question marks following her questions to you indicated she wasn't asking you a question she wished to have answered? Did you think she was expressing herself rhetorically? Just self-processing thoughts here for her own amusement?

Is it correct for me to assume than when men you know do exactly what Nicki describes you doing, you call those men out for behaving in a sexist manner? When, let's say, two men get together on a public forum and toss around psychiatric labels--a typically sexist/misogynistic thing to do--calling someone a man-hater, a typically sexist/misogynistic thing to do--do you challenge those men for being misogynists, or for being misogynistic? Are there occasions you can show me where you have done so? (Where you have called out men for gathering to draw sexist conclusions about a woman based on interpretations her behavior not owned as such?)

Do you believe men get to behave this way and have it be ethically and politically "okay"? Because I see men toss women under the bus all the time, in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.

What I see you both doing here, together, is conspiring to construct a version of someone that is loaded up with unquestioned and unexamined sexist assumptions, bias, and practices. Do you own that you've each done that? Do you both own that this thread shows off your abilities to do this, in practice?

I concur with the gist and specifics of what Nicki is saying that if women do to men what men do to women--and I mean the same things rather precisely--it is only the women men call out, not the men. And it is only the women men gather together to put down in the ways you both do put down and negatively categorise and psychoanalyse. And it is only the women who get called all manner of sexist/misogynistic terms like "crazy" and "bipolar" demonstrating "extreme highs and lows".

Now, IF I see some indicators of some psychiatric conditions here with you both--such as pathologically weak egos resulting in reactivity that contains elements of hostility; such as overly defensive posturing demonstrating an inability to accept truth when it comes from a woman, or women, to the point that two men need to reinforce one another's assumed "truthful" realities, to shore them up, to make them more TRUE, even when they remain loaded with sexist bias and misogynistic assumptions; if I demonstrate how two straight guys display a pathological level of heteropatriarchal "madness", and then take my conclusions to a few other places online, and a few other people say, "Yeah, I had a really similar experience of those two guys!", ought OUR collective perspective become TRUTH?

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not making those conclusions about you... yet. But, Andrao, IF I WERE to conclude that you do show hostility to Nicki here, and that hostility shows some unowned "anger issues" and IF you got angry at me for stating this, would it be acceptable for me to go elsewhere and use that to prove my point and rest my case?

This is how it works, guys. All some guy has to do is frame up any woman in SEXIST or MISOGYNIST ways, followed by the men claiming to know the TRUTH while women can never possibly know that about men who do EXACTLY the same thing. And I do mean" exactly".

Do you agree that it is, in reality, the case that men contact women, and for reasons unexplained to women, don't contact them ever again, and offer no explanation directly to the women? Do you agree that it is common patriarchal practice for men to subjectively misjudge women's behaviors, and to collude and conspire to come up with an explanation of what went down that leaves their own sexism out of their conclusions?

Nicki showed you how you do exactly what you say you don't respect people doing, so what's up with the sexist double standard, from both of you guys? Are your egos really so fragile that you need one another for self-validation?
33 minutes ago · ·

______________________

As my comment got deleted, I reposted it with the following intro:
Julian Real
Julian Real
This apparently accidentally got CENSORED. So I'll repost it:

@Andrao, and also to Terry,

I'm going to posit a hypothetical, for the purposes of making a few points. Bear with me.... [...]
 
Nicki showed you how you do exactly what you say you don't respect people doing, so what's up with the sexist double standard, from both of you guys? Are your egos really so fragile that you need one another for self-validation?
2 seconds ago · ·
______________________

UPDATE: So Andrao writes to ME, personally, not publicly, and comes up with some excuse for censoring my views. Typical. The man can't handle the truth. Because the truth about men is damned ugly.

Yes, it was deleted by me, and I just deleted your last comment again. If you are a friend of Aganju's indirectly sent here because of a note or status she wrote about me, then your post is not welcome on my page. If she is too much of a coward to come here and defend herself, then I CERTAINLY will not allow her cohorts to come to my page to do her talking for her.

Good day.
______________________

UPDATE: further private correspondence:

Awesome. Debate your views there then amongst your other radical pro feminists.
Julian Real June 28 at 11:13am
Yes, because you're too much of a coward to debate me on your turf. Typical...

_____________________

UPDATE:
This is his new Facebook pic.

Andrão Brasileiro Fanático
The subtitle to the poster, under the word "SEXISM" is utterly vile, woman-hating CRAP. A link to the poster is here. I guess he's done PRETENDING not to be a misogynist.

[Please be sure to see the follow-up post to this one, SEXISM-IN-ACTION, Part 2, by clicking *here*]

Sunday, June 27, 2010

The Father's Wrongs: White Women Reporting the Horrors of Christian WHM Supremacist British Isles Societies' pro-Batterer/Abuser Practices and Policies

[image of a patriarchal white sky-god is from here]

This blog post consists of three articles. The first and last are by a brave and strong woman named Portia. Her strength has been determined, misogynistically, to be a negative trait by patriarchal men. The middle article is by Justine McCarthy who I have not yet had the pleasure to meet. Each article has a link back to their source publication website. Revealed here is the deliberate, harmful, woman-hating, child-hating, and oppressive, utterly pro-patriarchal values, attitudes, and practices that underlie, inform, and shape the "criminal" justice systems of the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

The first is from here: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/96229

Catholic Church Guilty of Ordering Women and Children Back To Male Abusers.

Thursday April 01, 2010 00:25author 
by Portia
Obey, Obey, Obey.
The Catholic church has behaved like a cult in keeping women and children as second class human beings who were expected to obey the men of God without question.

The influence of this church has infiltrated most Government agencies especially the legal system where once again women and children were often made homeless for refusing to put up with abuse and play happy families.
Obey, Obey, Obey

Catholic Church Guilty of Ordering Women and Children Back To Male Abusers.

Now that the light of truth has been shed on the Vatican and its role in keeping abuse of children hidden, it is time to expose the suffering endured by thousands of Irish mothers and their children who were ordered back home to their violent husbands by Catholic priests after they had escaped such abuse.

It was standard practice in Ireland to make mothers return with their children - No support given! No help given! no advice given!

Just "Get back to your husband woman, that’s your place!”

"The only way you can leave your husband is in a coffin, you know the rules of the Church"

Obey, Obey, Obey.

If these women defied the Priest and did not return then they were castigated, labeled as `Harlots’. and declared outcasts. Most went into exile and were never heard of again.

Family and friends sided with the Catholic priest, so the victims were further abused and isolated.

Women born into the Catholic Church in other countries experienced similar abuse from the priests and their cohorts for simply daring to escape violence. The indoctrination of girls in Catholic schools worldwide regarding their role in society is rarely spoken of and the abuse of women in Catholic families continues to be hidden.

Catholic Priests who ordered children and mothers back to the violence and abuse did not do so alone but were operating according to higher orders.

So, where exactly did these orders come from?

The teachings on this go back to St Augustine who lived in a dysfunctional family where his mother was beaten and forced to obey the violent father.

This “saint” then set about writing on how it is good for women to suffer at the hands of their husbands, because all women are evil and need to repent for the sin of being born female.

He also followed the teachings of Aristotle who also saw the subjugation of women as being necessary for society.

The patriarchal church also taught that women who think they are being abused are simply deceiving themselves and should not be believed. Keeping the women in the institution of marriage was all that mattered.

Children of the marriage were not believed either regarding abuse by the father, as that made would make him look bad in the eyes of the community and men’s reputations and good standing had to be protected.

By saying and doing nothing about the abuse, the Roman Catholic Church was thereby encouraging the denial of the realities of domestic violence and intra-familial terrorism and the extreme sufferings of abused mothers and their children.

Many mothers returned to the violence as a consequence of the Priests directives and suffered broken health and premature deaths. Children often suffered serious mental disorders or lapsed into crime and prostitution and drug addiction.

Priests would commonly say to abused mothers, “His (the abusive violent father) soul must be saved! You must return to him and stay with him to save his soul or he will not be admitted to heaven when he dies!”

The same patriarchal thinking has continued today into the legal system, whereby abused mothers and children are made to suffer for daring to come forward and try to escape.

This abuse has been allowed to continue into the next generation, thus perpetuating the cycle.

Solicitors and Barristers warn protective mothers not to dare mention to Family Court Judges the abuse of their children by fathers, citing “ judges are sick of hearing about child abuse” and so abuse goes on and on, like it did in the Catholic Church.

Some judges in Ireland still order women and children home to “be good little girls and obey.”

These are women of 40 years, so hardly girls, but this is how patriarchal judges see them.

All part of the brainwashing and social conditioning of females by the Roman Catholic Church. The holy sanctity of marriage and `Till death do us part…” mattered above all else and certainly the sufferings of mothers and children were of no account against the Catholic Church teachings.

Society still ostracizes victims of domestic violence, citing “she made her bed, now, let her lie in it”.
She has dishonored the family name and must leave the community.

But the husband is free to use and abuse his wife and children.

The same patriarchal system, which labeled all women as evil, still uses the same excuses in law to allow the abuser to walk free.

Here are a few well-known and typical excuses used by the RC Church and the Judiciary.
“All women are evil" ´ “Women's only role is to produce babies"

“All women are emotional, so therefore in need of locking up in the “Looney Bins" should they step out of line.

It is also very simple for a violent husband to have his wife committed to a mental institution so that his image is protected.

Remember how it was, one word from the priest or the brutal husband and the men in white coats arrived and the mother disappeared from society. Nobody was allowed to speak of her again.

“That will teach her to keep her mouth shut about male abusers”.

“That will teach the rest of the strong women to keep quiet about abuse too”

Of course the real reason for locking women away was to get possession of the land and property and children.

This is no different to the days of the witch-hunts, when the Vatican men of God ordered that women be burned at the stake in order to get their property.

It is also worth nothing that the Catholic Church singles out strong independent female children from a young age for persecution, aided and abetted by the Government agencies, especially social services.

Young girls were subjected to services of Exorcism by Catholic priests in order to break their spirit and render them obedient.

This same stigma remaining attached to them in motherhood which meant their children were stolen by the State.

It sounds so crazy in this day and age, yet it has been happening for generations and is still happening in secret.

The HSE- Social Services use the same secrecy rules as the Vatican.

It uses the same tactics of threats and intimidation also.

So too, the Family Courts.

Hardly surprising when the Judiciary, the legal profession, and the government are also controlled by the Catholic Institution in Ireland.

Most judges, social workers, Guardians, solicitors, barristers play by the Catholic rules for fear of rocking the boat and the truth be exposed for all to see.

Careers and incomes are dependent on these collusions and collaborations and none may break the silence and expose the injustices and atrocities in which they are all complicit.

Catholic teaching has taught abusive men how to manipulate and deceive in order to save face and remain in control.

This is how abusers are able to gain custody of the children they have abused, even when documented evidence is provided to the Judges and the various agencies involved.

2,000 years of suppression, subjugation, and maltreatment of females is enough. The Roman Catholic Church must be brought to account for all of its evil deeds which it must confess and seek forgiveness and make redemption. Until it does, it will remain a Church, which promotes and assists evil doings to women and children.

Now is the time for the Divine Feminine to take her place in society and bring love and harmony to all who desire it.

Portia.

*          *          *

What follows next is from here: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/hurt-women-a....html

Hurt women are crying out - not crying wolf

By Justine McCarthy
Saturday November 18 2006

IT IS hard to decide, in the blaze of fury ignited by Judge Thomas Fitzpatrick's ignorant remarks in Letterkenny District Court on Thursday, whether the man should be promptly removed from the bench, or whether he should be awarded a medal.
If any good is to be salvaged from his crude hypothesis that women are "crying wolf" about domestic violence it is that he has swivelled the spotlight, if only momentarily, onto one of the most neglected virulences in our society.

Women are being murdered at an average rate of one a month in Ireland. In most cases, their killers are men they know. The occurrence of rape is increasing but the proportional incidence of reporting it is diminishing and the number of those reported rapes that culminate in convictions is minuscule. Gardai log about 8,500 call-outs to domestic violence incidents each year. There are waiting lists for counselling in the Rape Crisis centres across the country.

Of the 25,000 calls made to the Women's Aid helpline last year, 10,500 rang out because the organisation did not have the money to answer them. The Government promised it €70,000 to ensure these calls would be answered in future and then reneged on the pledged funding.

On the day that the financial plight of Women's Aid was reported in this newspaper, the main front page story calculated that TDs were getting €1,000 for every day they attended Leinster House.

Whenever it is mooted that there ought to be special training for judges in handling cases of domestic violence, the over-riding imperative of judicial independence is cited as an immovable obstacle. Clearly, the insensitive comments of some judges are also an impediment to the administration of justice and put a question mark over the efficacy of providing special training for gardai if the courts cannot summon up the sensitivity required.

There is anecdotal evidence that some of Judge Fitzpatrick's judicial colleagues are disastrously insensitive. One woman, for instance, was advised by another judge on another occasion to "go home and be a good wife". As many domestic violence cases, such as applications for safety orders, are heard 'in camera', the actual prevalence of this unhelpful paternalistic attitude is unquantifiable. God knows what is being said behind closed doors.

On his judicial salary of around €115,000-plus-expenses, Judge Fitzpatrick might be reasonably expected to familiarise himself with the patterns and characteristics of domestic violence. In his Letterkenny court on Thursday, the woman, who withdrew her allegation of assault against her fiancé, never denied its veracity. When the judge asked her why she had made the complaint in the first place, she said it was because she was in fear at the time and was worried that the situation would get out of hand.

"What are you women doing making what appears (sic) to be spurious complaints against people?" the judge wondered. He noted it was the second time this week that a complaint had been withdrawn in his court and added: "I cannot help but notice that they are mostly made by women". In a system which fails to reassure victims that it will vindicate their safety and integrity, such loose talk is downright dangerous.

Yet it is consistently given oxygen by certain media commentators who insist on portraying women as the cause rather than the target of domestic violence, an insidious and disingenuous perversion of the facts.
There are many plausible and understandable reasons why abused women withdraw their complaints of assault. Fear of retaliation is the most common, a consideration compounded by the perpetrator's unlimited access to his victim within the family home. The instinct to protect children is another. What woman wants her offspring to witness their father being bundled into the back of a squad car and labelled a wife-beater? We know from countless testimonies that it is only when the abuse becomes extremely dangerous that women will take that ultimate step and call the gardai.

There is another highly potent disincentive for victims of domestic violence to pursue their complaints and that is their lack of faith in the justice system. By nature of the crimes they suffer, involving degradation, humiliation, powerlessness and the guilt accrued from being told they themselves are the trigger for the violence, the self-esteem of these victims is usually rock-bottom.

It is an iniquitous feature of our society that the issue of violence against women does not command the same robustly-patrolled societal consensus as does drink-driving. I have little doubt that Judge Fitzpatrick is tough on perpetrators of domestic violence. However, people will continue to be beaten up by their spouses and partners unless they receive the whole-hearted protection of society. And victims - mostly women - will go on withdrawing their complaints in courts like Judge Thomas Fitzpatrick's.

Justine McCarthy is deputy editor of 'Village' magazine

- Justine McCarthy

*          *          *

What's next is from here: http://www.lyndamac.com/?s=sooner%2C+hopefully%2C+you+the+reader+will+have+a+better+understanding+of+why

A true story from 2010.

Judge and Barristers dance to the tune of abuser in domestic violence case.

Children and Mother continue to be abused by the psychopath legally endorsed by the system in the heart of Suffolk.UK

In my role as an independent supporter, adviser, and advocate for children and protective parents over the last 15 years, I have encountered and observed many situations of domestic violence and the terrorising of mothers and children by abusive males.

As an example, my most recent case involved a mother with two children and the abject fears, which the abuser brought into their lives. After many years of suffering such violence in all its forms, physical, mental, emotional, sexual and financial, the protective mother was finally able to gather enough strength to escape with her children from the torture and torment of their persecutor and tormentor.

Their sufferings were reminiscent of the 17th Century rather than the 21st Century. How could this be happening in today’s world – yet it is happening every day, in every part of the country, and at all levels of social class in our society, and with alarming and increasing frequency.

But the abuse and torture did not end with their leaving the family home, but continued and increased. The police records show that the mother suffered extreme mental torture whereby the abuser kept telling his victims daily that he had poisoned her with arsenic and warfarin and that he added dirt to her food, that he could shoot her and she would not feel it, that he could murder and walk away. The Police decided to do blood tests and hair analysis on the victim in the hope of putting the woman’s mind at ease and to find out why she ended up in this condition in such a short space of time.

The abused mother had gone from 10 stone to 7 stone, with her teeth all going rotten in the space of a year, causing her to look like an AIDS victim or a druggie. Every order given by this abuser had to be obeyed. The neighbors describe the fear on the children’s faces on seeing their father drive home and run inside. The abused mother had to get permission for every penny spent in the home. As time went by the mother and children were being deprived of more and more essentials and in the end the children stopped asking, as they knew it was a futile exercise. Their dreams of horse riding and playing golf were shattered.

Ultimate control was the order of the day, even when he was working.

Often it took 3 months of asking to be taken to the shops for shoes for the children before the abuser finally went. By then the whole joy had been taken out of it. The children were no longer allowed to play their pianos and compose music in the home. The mother and children were no longer allowed to sing or paint.Every positive thing the mother did for her children was knocked on the head.

The children sank deeper and deeper into despair.

One day, the children conducted a court hearing at home in an effort to show the abuser what he was doing to them and their mother, in the hope that he would change.They had no idea that a psychopath never changes but only becomes worse when he realizes that their victims are awakening to truth.Pictures show the physical abuse of both children.

The mother had become so ill as to be unable to make a cup of tea.

However the abuser smiled as she screamed in pain and he stepped over her, like she did not exist. If she asked for a soft-boiled egg, because of her teeth, he gave a hard-boiled one, in full knowing that she could not eat it. He then called her a pig. Then he slapped her so hard for not eating that she blanked out from the pain. When the mother asked for an explanation, the abuser said it was to teach her a lesson.

The abuser took sadistic pleasure in watching his victims squirm under his total control and only lost his cool when the terminally ill grandfather of 80 years came in for a week to help out.

That week the mother gained her strength and the children experienced the joys of working and learning from their grandfather.

This act of human kindness sparked the planned exit from the abuser.

The gaunt appearance of the abused mother led most of the professionals to form the wrong opinion of her. The crocodile tears of the abuser worked, leading people to pity him. Inside he was laughing at all of them, as he was succeeding in dividing and destroying the victim’s entire family. The abuser’s ring of destruction has widened and is widening by the day. The system is allowing him to do so.

He is fully aware of what he does, mesmerizing family members and professionals alike, as he entraps all of them in his web The abuser has now managed to worm his way into getting a family member to hold the children hostage and not allow them to see their mother. The children are being used to send messages to their distraught mother that their father is going to buy some arsenic and warfarin and 2 body bags the following day. This is child abuse in itself and continued mental abuse of the mother. Text messages sent in the middle of the night, stating the children are being moved again and the mother will never see them again. One of the children has already ended up in hospital through neglect and no one in the system informed the mother, furthering her anguish.

The dominant male abuser has all around dancing to his tune only. His aim is to have his victim committed, so he can get her house and bring in another woman. After all, he has sucked the living life out of this wife and needs fresh meat to feed on. The abuser even managed to get the GP to force the mother to undergo psychiatric assessments.

A court hearing took place the other day and the abuser applied for occupation of the family home and residence of the children. It is not classified as a domestic abuse case, despite the fact that an advocate from the IDVA being present, photos of bruises on the mother and children being in the hands of the barrister. The judge, barristers etc were clueless and running around trying to do deals, so they could scurry off home. No one listened to the weak voice of the abused, but they all danced to the tune of the bully.So, when the abuser said the first psychiatric assessment of the victim was a fake, the judge ordered another one, but failed to make an order for the abuser to have one, showing clear discrimination of the female victim.

The victim said she felt totally violated and abused by the Judge and legal professionals. All were pushing her to agree to the demands of the abuser.

One would have expected the children to be a priority in this case too, but sadly, the court- in its wisdom has ordered the children to remain hostages in a strange house, stripped of all their own possessions, pianos, computers, books, etc, as these children are home schooled and about 5 years ahead of their peers in state schooling.

In typical patriarchal fashion, the children must obey the abuser for a further 6 weeks and loose out on their education at home. There was not once ounce of human kindness in that courtroom towards the victim, except from the advocate.

The victim was a nuisance to them and they just wanted rid of her. Her weakness and frailty was held against her. The trauma caused to the children and mother by this experience is enormous, but the men and women of the court are clearly ignorant of this or are deliberately condoning it and colluding with a criminal.

The victims are mere numbers, pawns in a chess game and of course as long as the abuser is on the board, the game continues and money is made.

Meanwhile the vultures circle their prey, weak from abuse, in the hope of finishing them off.

This case shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that protective parents and their children are being punished by this patriarchal system for daring to break free of violence and abuse. The system as it is, keeps the protective parent enslaved through the use of children. The only professional to see past the façade is the lady trained in domestic abuse.

In the media it speaks of all the agencies rallying around to help victims of domestic abuse, but 6 weeks down the line and the only agency in sight is an independent domestic violence agency.

Clearly it is a trap to ensnare the protective parents and their children.55% of domestic abuse victims looses their children to forced adoption in the UK.This shows that protective parents and children are being punished for doing the right thing in trying to free themselves from abuse and violence.

The professionals need proper training so they can understand all the dynamics involved in domestic abuse.

The professionals need to learn from the survivors. However, most professionals believe themselves to know it all and feel that to speak to survivors is somehow lowering themselves. The truth on domestic abuse is rarely to be found in books. It is to be found though in talking to those who have lived through the abuse and survived.

The next time some professional reprimands a victim of domestic abuse for not coming forward sooner, hopefully, you the reader will have a better understanding of why.

Portia