Again, you're looking at this mess and thinking "this makes no sense" and thinking there is no logic here.
But there is. It's just that the words "empowered" and "misogyny" aren't defined the way you think they are, as fixed, discrete and continuous concepts defined once.
No, misogyny isn't a fixed value. Misogyny is a function. Misogyny = f(x,y,z). And the actual value you get depends entirely on the context and value of the variables (which are themselves functions)
Whether or not something is misogyny depends on who did the action being judged, their social status, their location in space and time, their nationality, their race, their sexuality, their prior actions and adherence to the faith etc etc etc. And this is by definition.
Within this definition, a man killing women because he hates them can be totally non-misogyny (think trans male POC muslim attacking TERF women at a Trump rally) while a woman buying a dress for her daughter can be totally misogyny.
Trying to argue logic within this framework is useless. You need to argue semantics.
Oh man. I accidentally changed the page while writing a comment down. I'm such a dumbass.
Basically, what I wrote is that there comes a problem with arguing with them. Those variables are always dynamic to them and fit whatever argument they want. There are no standards, and that's what frustrates me the most. What I'd call a chair, they would put a cup of tea and call it a table, and without a mutual agreement on what variables constitute a chair and not a table, there will always be disagreement.
They don't seem to want to have an honest discussion. More like they'd rather play a game with rules they want to set. You rolled a five? Well, it's a Tuesday, so it's really only a two.
It's why I rather say hey, remember when you guys said this? I find it's personally less aggravating than actually sitting down and trying to figure out which "definition" of racism they want to use today, whether systemic, internalized, or whatever suits them best.
Oh there's absolutely no point in trying to figure out which bullshit definition of "racism" is being used or what the implications are.
That's the whole point. You have to reject the entire thing outright, at the root. Not because the construct is illogical or irrational, it isn't. But because the construct is useless bullshit with no practical or functional purpose outside the personal increase of wealth and power for those insidious bullshit-smiths who crafted the thing in the halls of academia.
I think I see what you’re saying. There is a purpose, something illogical stuff wouldn’t necessarily have. Yeah, if only they could see they’re being used.
Again, you're looking at this mess and thinking "this makes no sense" and thinking there is no logic here.
But there is. It's just that the words "empowered" and "misogyny" aren't defined the way you think they are, as fixed, discrete and continuous concepts defined once.
No, misogyny isn't a fixed value. Misogyny is a function. Misogyny = f(x,y,z). And the actual value you get depends entirely on the context and value of the variables (which are themselves functions)
Whether or not something is misogyny depends on who did the action being judged, their social status, their location in space and time, their nationality, their race, their sexuality, their prior actions and adherence to the faith etc etc etc. And this is by definition.
Within this definition, a man killing women because he hates them can be totally non-misogyny (think trans male POC muslim attacking TERF women at a Trump rally) while a woman buying a dress for her daughter can be totally misogyny.
Trying to argue logic within this framework is useless. You need to argue semantics.
Oh man. I accidentally changed the page while writing a comment down. I'm such a dumbass.
Basically, what I wrote is that there comes a problem with arguing with them. Those variables are always dynamic to them and fit whatever argument they want. There are no standards, and that's what frustrates me the most. What I'd call a chair, they would put a cup of tea and call it a table, and without a mutual agreement on what variables constitute a chair and not a table, there will always be disagreement.
They don't seem to want to have an honest discussion. More like they'd rather play a game with rules they want to set. You rolled a five? Well, it's a Tuesday, so it's really only a two.
It's why I rather say hey, remember when you guys said this? I find it's personally less aggravating than actually sitting down and trying to figure out which "definition" of racism they want to use today, whether systemic, internalized, or whatever suits them best.
Oh there's absolutely no point in trying to figure out which bullshit definition of "racism" is being used or what the implications are.
That's the whole point. You have to reject the entire thing outright, at the root. Not because the construct is illogical or irrational, it isn't. But because the construct is useless bullshit with no practical or functional purpose outside the personal increase of wealth and power for those insidious bullshit-smiths who crafted the thing in the halls of academia.
I think I see what you’re saying. There is a purpose, something illogical stuff wouldn’t necessarily have. Yeah, if only they could see they’re being used.