Society/Culture Q&A 2016

[DemonTim]

Dude. I don't care that much about this. I just want to make sure people are aware that it isn't made up that there is a 'gendered' aspect to the term hysterical. And yes the practice occurred in the 20th century. See the wiki article on it. There you will also see that "Women considered to have it exhibited a wide array of symptoms, including faintness, nervousness, sexual desire, insomnia, fluid retention, heaviness in the abdomen, muscle spasm, shortness of breath, irritability, loss of appetite for food or sex, and a "tendency to cause trouble.". So yes, overly sexualised women were diagnosed with it. That is the context within which it is often mentioned in current sociological writing as people refer to things like ****-shaming.

The meaning of words is not "entirely theory". How people use words tends to alter the theoretical meaning. e.g. "literal" is now in some dictionaries as meaning figurative due to it's common mis-use as emphasis.

As for using Google, if you are getting lots of results of one kind you can use a minus sign in front of the world to scrub those results from your findings. Anything else?

You referenced the movie and 20th century practice as some form of evidence. They don't relate. The movie wasn't set in the 20th century

And no. The diagnosis wasn't overly sexualised women, it was women who were under sexualised. I've provided you with the original meaning with references to what it meant and what would cure it. The ovaries moved due to a lack of vaginal lubrication, from the woman being under sexualised. They recommended the female have sex to change this. Hence the reference of the movie to the creation of the vibrator. It's the entire premise of the movie.

Might want to read the entire wiki article before quoting it
Female hysteria was often attributed to sexual frustration, with females being unable to reduce stress via vaginal intercourse; this led to physicians recommending private clitoral stimulation at home.[citation needed] Women unable to do so on their own received relief via a genital massage from a physician

Also from your same wiki entry
Hysteria of both genders was widely discussed in the medical literature of the nineteenth centurY

Reality.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

You referenced the movie and 20th century practice as some form of evidence. They don't relate. The movie wasn't set in the 20th century

And no. The diagnosis wasn't overly sexualised women, it was women who were under sexualised. I've provided you with the original meaning with references to what it meant and what would cure it. The ovaries moved due to a lack of vaginal lubrication, from the woman being under sexualised. They recommended the female have sex to change this. Hence the reference of the movie to the creation of the vibrator. It's the entire premise of the movie.

Might want to read the entire wiki article before quoting it
Female hysteria was often attributed to sexual frustration, with females being unable to reduce stress via vaginal intercourse; this led to physicians recommending private clitoral stimulation at home.[citation needed] Women unable to do so on their own received relief via a genital massage from a physician

Also from your same wiki entry
Hysteria of both genders was widely discussed in the medical literature of the nineteenth centurY

Reality.

Jayzuz. No. I said that there was a movie as recent as 2012 which even used 'Hysteria' as it's name, in reference to the 20th century practice. And it wasn't the only one. Michael Fassbender, Keira Knightley and Viggo Mortensen were in another movie about it called 'A Dangerous Method' which was out at about the same time. Films like these were widely publicised and as I said 'hysteria' is also referenced in writing about **** walks, ****-shaming, etc.

As for your ignoring the plain english mention that it was diagnosed for sexual desire, we can keep spending time on this ridiculous argument by you thinking about the fact that someone who is having 'too much sex' as per the concerns of others was because they weren't achieving orgasm and consequently the vibrator helped women achieve orgasm who were struggling to get it from normal intercourse.

Once again. The point is that the inferences aren't being made up, just as I haven't made up any of the things you're tried to suggest I got wrong.

 

[DemonTim]

Jayzuz. No. I said that there was a movie as recent as 2012 which even used 'Hysteria' as it's name, in reference to the 20th century practice. And it wasn't the only one. Michael Fassbender, Keira Knightley and Viggo Mortensen were in another movie about it called 'A Dangerous Method' which was out at about the same time. Films like these were widely publicised and as I said 'hysteria' is also referenced in writing about **** walks, ****-shaming, etc.

As for your ignoring the plain english mention that it was diagnosed for sexual desire, we can keep spending time on this ridiculous argument by you thinking about the fact that someone who is having 'too much sex' as per the concerns of others was because they weren't achieving orgasm and consequently the vibrator helped women achieve orgasm who were struggling to get it from normal intercourse.

Once again. The point is that the inferences aren't being made up, just as I haven't made up any of the things you're tried to suggest I got wrong.

You used a movie set in the 1800s and referenced "20th century practice". You were either wrong or are being disingenuous. As with the original meaning

A dangerous method was a completely different premise to hysteria. Are you just googling "hysteria in pop culture"?

Can you show some examples of hysteria as **** shaming in literature? I googled it and all I got was a few random blogs.

What plain English am I ignoring?

The inferences are being made up. That's the great thing about inferences. You need to prove the implication to say that the inference isn't made up. And you haven't done that

 

[Blommerz]

Jayzuz. No. I said that there was a movie as recent as 2012 which even used 'Hysteria' as it's name, in reference to the 20th century practice. And it wasn't the only one. Michael Fassbender, Keira Knightley and Viggo Mortensen were in another movie about it called 'A Dangerous Method' which was out at about the same time. Films like these were widely publicised and as I said 'hysteria' is also referenced in writing about **** walks, ****-shaming, etc.

As for your ignoring the plain english mention that it was diagnosed for sexual desire, we can keep spending time on this ridiculous argument by you thinking about the fact that someone who is having 'too much sex' as per the concerns of others was because they weren't achieving orgasm and consequently the vibrator helped women achieve orgasm who were struggling to get it from normal intercourse.

Once again. The point is that the inferences aren't being made up, just as I haven't made up any of the things you're tried to suggest I got wrong.

Please refer to my replies as to precisely how and why you're incorrect. The historical (archaic) meaning is in reference to women who were not achieving orgasm.

As I have clearly proven, the word no longer holds those connotations. Etymology does not a definition make. Again, as I have already evidenced.

Thus, extrapolating gendered use from a word where that use has fallen out of favour is extraordinarily disingenuous. Suggesting someone using the word in today's age (you know, where definitions according to common parlance reigns supreme) was referencing an archaic use of the word, and yourself not actually analysing the context of the discussion, is similarly disingenuous.

Thus, the inferences you refer to are non-existent given the changing scope and nature of the English language.

 

[romeohwho]

Just so I can appraise myself of the situation, is the argument from those who claim this is an example of misogyny that:

Hysterical has an historical (archaic) meaning, steeped in gendered etymological roots, and therefore Proce was being sexist? That he deliberately chose the word hysterical to dismiss her due to the origins of the word?

I think everyone's giving Price too much credit for his intelligence. Hysterical, as it is used in common parlance, does not denote the gendered meaning it once did. It literally means that someone isn't seeing sense because their mind has been clouded with emotion. I think the word was an apt description for the circumstances.

People are too quick to call something misogynist, nowadays. It's a shame, because real misogyny exists and this kind of drivel detracts from it. It also serves to push people away from true feminism, which is completely damaging.

Interestingly enough, pretty sure the only person to use the term misogyny in this discussion, is you.
Price incorrectly used the term whilst speaking to Badham( incorrect because she was not hysterical)-his intention was to dismiss her points, not with a reasoned argument, but with a tag that has negative connotations. ( probably because he was out of his depth and could only offer up that these guys were his friends and good blokes, by way of excusing their comments)
Its very simple and you are overanalyzing it.

 

[Blommerz]

Interestingly enough, pretty sure the only person to use the term misogyny in this discussion, is you.
Price incorrectly used the term whilst speaking to Badham( incorrect because she was not hysterical)-his intention was to dismiss her points, not with a reasoned argument, but with a tag that has negative connotations. ( probably because he was out of his depth and could only offer up that these guys were his friends and good blokes, by way of excusing their comments)
Its very simple and you are overanalyzing it.

Oh really?

Thread page 20:

"Price is an aging shock jock who's being gazumped by some louder, younger blithering idiots from the tabloid class you agree with. He knew dropping a loaded and sexist term like that would get him a few days in the papers.
His excuse can be self-aggrandisement; the sexists who agree with him have no excuse."

"It has one when used against a woman in that context comrade - even a brainwashed motherfgoose from a cultural studies course could see that"

"So it's ok for Pricey to make a coded ad hominem attack against women - which essentially amounted to devaluing her point of view - no matter how you spin it - I see - it's all a bit of fun - and words have no meaning or history. -is that how it goes?
I must be excrement"

"They don't, that's why the definition of the word misogyny was changed in accordance with the new usage. The same has or should happen with hysterical."​

Of course, I'm certain there have been other mentions of it, but I just took a small sample to prove my point.

Perhaps you should try actually reading the thread next time?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Oh really?

Nice touch with the fake post in the introductions thread. "Hi Im new to Big Footy and...".

 

[Blommerz]

Nice touch with the fake post in the introductions thread. "Hi Im new to Big Footy and...".

What, no logical and reasoned response? Of course, attempting to trivialise an argument of someone you disagree with by resorting to irrelevant, baffling, and personal references (after a profile stalk, I'm sure) is quite telling in relation to this discussion. If you have nothing of substance to offer, why are you here?

And for what it's worth - I am actually new to this. I've never been a member of bigfooty in my life. Well, save for this account.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

You're new to Big Footy and one of your first points of call is the pages and pages of tedious, navel-gazing chat about whether a word means something?

No wonder 'DemonTim likes this'.

 

[romeohwho]

Oh really?

Thread page 20:

"Price is an aging shock jock who's being gazumped by some louder, younger blithering idiots from the tabloid class you agree with. He knew dropping a loaded and sexist term like that would get him a few days in the papers.
His excuse can be self-aggrandisement; the sexists who agree with him have no excuse."

"It has one when used against a woman in that context comrade - even a brainwashed motherfgoose from a cultural studies course could see that"

"So it's ok for Pricey to make a coded ad hominem attack against women - which essentially amounted to devaluing her point of view - no matter how you spin it - I see - it's all a bit of fun - and words have no meaning or history. -is that how it goes?
I must be excrement"

"They don't, that's why the definition of the word misogyny was changed in accordance with the new usage. The same has or should happen with hysterical."​

Of course, I'm certain there have been other mentions of it, but I just took a small sample to prove my point.

Perhaps you should try actually reading the thread next time?

Misogyny=hatred or strong dislike of women
Sexism =discrimination based on a person's gender
Yep, people referred to sexism, but not the same thing are they Bloomz?( but yep, I didn't go trawling back through many pages of dross)
I didn't see Price's actions as necessarily misogynistic. I did see his use of the word in that context as intending to denigrate her view by suggesting she was not reasonable. When in fact, she was.
Anyway, re the point raised re Price? Was Badham hysterical?

 

[Blommerz]

Misogyny=hatred or strong dislike of women
Sexism =discrimination based on a person's gender
Yep, people referred to sexism, but not the same thing are they Bloomz?( but yep, I didn't go trawling back through many pages of dross)
I didn't see Price's actions as necessarily misogynistic. I did see his use of the word in that context as intending to denigrate her view by suggesting she was not reasonable. When in fact, she was.
Anyway, re the point raised re Price? Was Badham hysterical?

1. The point remains. The context of this discussion clearly elucidates (to anyone with a discerning mind) that misogyny and sexism are being used interchangeably - which isn't too hard to fathom given that a synonym of "misogynist" is "sexist". A cursory glance at any online thesaurus (I prefer: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/misogynist) will yield that result.
No amount of mental acrobatics and attempted language manipulation will alter the fact that you're clearly incorrect on that issue. Please do not engage in such intellectually dishonest tomfoolery when engaging me in debate - I do not stand for it.

2. As to the others: I don't care what you see Price's actions as, to be honest. Given I wasn't responding to you in the first instance, what I was saying was not directly applicable to your view. I don't mean that to sound harsh (as I am sure it does), but it is late and I am unable to rephrase it to maintain niceties at this point in time.

However, now that you have entered into the fray, I stress that all that Price did was use a word to dismiss a view (being that what McGuire said was sexist) he disagreed with. He did not intentionally use the word "hysterical" due to any etymological roots that the word has, especially given that the word has purged itself of that meaning. He did not refer to Van Badham as "being hysterical" because of her behaviour on set, he referred to her as such because she was over-reaching in relation to the McGuire situation and drawing parallels/extrapolations that simply didn't exist. You can clearly gauge that from the context of the discussion they are having on set (which seemed to center around the McGuire issue). Now I'm not saying he wasn't being an idiot - he clearly was. He wasn't patient enough to wait for Van Badham to finish her response in order to attack her view. That is unfair. But to extrapolate further and suggest that he used the word in a calculated manner is a massive over-reach - the context of the discussion (and the current meaning of the word) simply do not support such a contention.

3. I believe that Van Badham was being hysterical in her interpretation of the McGuire situation. I do not believe she was being hysterical in her delivery of that viewpoint; though she was clearly frustrated by Price's interruptions.

 

[Blommerz]

O

You're new to Big Footy and one of your first points of call is the pages and pages of tedious, navel-gazing chat about whether a word means something?

No wonder 'DemonTim likes this'.

Actually, I'm new to the whole sport, not just the forums. I have no clue why DemonTim likes my comments. Perhaps it's because we are both arguing the same thing, and we happen to agree with each other's posts? I'm assuming that's how this site works. I like his comments for that reason. To be completely honest, I don't even know why DemonTim has been pulled into this discussion of how I'm a fake account.

Comparative to my recent interest in (and thus lack of knowledge in relation to) footy, I happen to be pretty well versed in philosophy, politics, and gender studies having studied them all at university; as well as law. So, I scroll through "pages and pages" of so called "tedious" (as I have already explained, I enjoy reading and responding to this form of debate - especially given how steadfastly people like you cling to their ideals, even when confronted by logic, reason, and evidence to contrary) chat to gauge where everyone is at so that I can respond in kind.

But again, trying to trivialise my argument by not responding to it, and suggesting I'm a fake account, simply shows your lack of ability to respond. As far as I'm concerned, this kind of intellectually dishonest behaviour elucidates and highlights the feeble nature of your argument, and you can clearly see that yourself - hence the ad hominems.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I wish my football team was as defensive as you.

#AdHominen

 

[romeohwho]

1. The point remains. The context of this discussion clearly elucidates (to anyone with a discerning mind) that misogyny and sexism are being used interchangeably - which isn't too hard to fathom given that a synonym of "misogynist" is "sexist". A cursory glance at any online thesaurus (I prefer: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/misogynist) will yield that result.
No amount of mental acrobatics and attempted language manipulation will alter the fact that you're clearly incorrect on that issue. Please do not engage in such intellectually dishonest tomfoolery when engaging me in debate - I do not stand for it.

2. As to the others: I don't care what you see Price's actions as, to be honest. Given I wasn't responding to you in the first instance, what I was saying was not directly applicable to your view. I don't mean that to sound harsh (as I am sure it does), but it is late and I am unable to rephrase it to maintain niceties at this point in time.

However, now that you have entered into the fray, I stress that all that Price did was use a word to dismiss a view (being that what McGuire said was sexist) he disagreed with. He did not intentionally use the word "hysterical" due to any etymological roots that the word has, especially given that the word has purged itself of that meaning. He did not refer to Van Badham as "being hysterical" because of her behaviour on set, he referred to her as such because she was over-reaching in relation to the McGuire situation and drawing parallels/extrapolations that simply didn't exist. You can clearly gauge that from the context of the discussion they are having on set (which seemed to center around the McGuire issue). Now I'm not saying he wasn't being an idiot - he clearly was. He wasn't patient enough to wait for Van Badham to finish her response in order to attack her view. That is unfair. But to extrapolate further and suggest that he used the word in a calculated manner is a massive over-reach - the context of the discussion (and the current meaning of the word) simply do not support such a contention.

3. I believe that Van Badham was being hysterical in her interpretation of the McGuire situation. I do not believe she was being hysterical in her delivery of that viewpoint; though she was clearly frustrated by Price's interruptions.

I have seen very few examples of misogyny but have seen many examples of sexism. Perhaps your thesaurus is 'overreaching'? Speaking of which, how marvellous that you are able to read Steve Price's mind like that.
A simple 'Badham was not hysterical' will suffice thank you.
ps I'd be tired too carrying that weight around!

 

[Bollox]

I do hope and trust that none of you would ever bother anyone in the real world with this utter s**t.

Obese chick unable to secure a real job, dons smart glasses and finally gets onto the ABC after 50 phone calls, so Tony sits her next to an ugly ageing shock jock hoping to come across mildly confrontational for his regular audience.

Do you see yourslef as irrelevant social commentator number 353425 hoping to supplement a meagre income by feigning outrage and offence ?
Do you side with the scavenging shock jock desperately clinging to the arse end of his radio career by acting confrontational as per his job as a ratings whore ?

Utter garbage...but all that is needed is a single word and some feigned outrage and they flog it and flog it for the inevitable few days of intentional discussion the program needs. Tune in next week folks !!!

Your taxes at work.

Show some pride for godsake.

Dont feed this utter garbage. You would never admit in public that you are curious about Kim Kardashian's new round of plastic surgery (i hope), so dont admit that you are interested in this contrived garbage.

You see the baited hook. You know it was poorly presented to you. Dont embarass yourself by being the fish flapping around on the deck.

 

[DemonTim]

I have seen very few examples of misogyny but have seen many examples of sexism. Perhaps your thesaurus is 'overreaching'? Speaking of which, how marvellous that you are able to read Steve Price's mind like that.
A simple 'Badham was not hysterical' will suffice thank you.
ps I'd be tired too carrying that weight around!

Lol the thesaurus is overreaching

Isn't that what you're claiming to do though? You're claiming what he meant by hysterical aligns with what you say it does

 

[Blommerz]

I have seen very few examples of misogyny but have seen many examples of sexism. Perhaps your thesaurus is 'overreaching'? Speaking of which, how marvellous that you are able to read Steve Price's mind like that.
A simple 'Badham was not hysterical' will suffice thank you.
ps I'd be tired too carrying that weight around!

Tell me - what is misogyny if it isn't sexism directed towards women? Would you say that you can be a misogynist without first being a sexist? And would you say that you can be sexist towards women without being misogynist?
"Perhaps [my] thesaurus is overreaching?" The answer to that question is a clear and unequivocal 'no, it's not'. Thesauruses aren't sentient and don't engage in debate. I'm assuming, of course, that you know what a Thesaurus is? Again, if you are going to engage me in debate, I recommend that you do not engage in such intellectually dishonest discussion in future.

It's clear what Price was intending. The footage shows as much. And for you to consider otherwise clearly indicates your lack of discernment in this debate. But, of course, let's assume that what you're saying holds some gravity - that I would have to be able to read minds to know what the footage shows - what about your analysis of Price's use of the word? Does this then mean that you are reading Price's mind? That's the thing about attempting to trivialise an argument by positing a "you don't know what he was thinking" statement - it is double edged and applies to your argument too. Notwithstanding the fact that an approach to this situation, without bias tainting the mind, would yield the same conclusion as the one I have come to.

I otherwise note that you haven't contributed anything of substance to this discussion thus far. Pro-tip: sarcasm and intellectually dishonest analyses of words and meanings do not serve to assist your argument (if one could even be extrapolated from your drivel). Perhaps you should allow some time to ruminate on this issue a little more - you clearly have no idea what you're talking about at the moment.

As for a response to your latter points, a simple "don't tell me how to respond" should suffice. Is that to your liking? Easier for you to read through, perhaps?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

O


Actually, I'm new to the whole sport, not just the forums. I have no clue why DemonTim likes my comments. Perhaps it's because we are both arguing the same thing, and we happen to agree with each other's posts? I'm assuming that's how this site works. I like his comments for that reason. To be completely honest, I don't even know why DemonTim has been pulled into this discussion of how I'm a fake account.

Comparative to my recent interest in (and thus lack of knowledge in relation to) footy, I happen to be pretty well versed in philosophy, politics, and gender studies having studied them all at university; as well as law. So, I scroll through "pages and pages" of so called "tedious" (as I have already explained, I enjoy reading and responding to this form of debate - especially given how steadfastly people like you cling to their ideals, even when confronted by logic, reason, and evidence to contrary) chat to gauge where everyone is at so that I can respond in kind.

But again, trying to trivialise my argument by not responding to it, and suggesting I'm a fake account, simply shows your lack of ability to respond. As far as I'm concerned, this kind of intellectually dishonest behaviour elucidates and highlights the feeble nature of your argument, and you can clearly see that yourself - hence the ad hominems.

Ah, I didn't actually say you were a fake poster. Of course in the world of BF any new account who pops up suddenly in a thread with passionate views is looked at pretty sussly, but you (being apparently new to BF and AFL) wouldn't have known that, so it's odd that you assumed I was accusing you...?

And, no, I haven't been "confronted by logic, reason, and evidence to contrary". All we've been confronted by regarding 'evidence' is dictionary definitions. What has otherwise happened is DemonTim has confirmed Price was deliberately trying to wind up Van Badham, and you have confirmed that you think 'hysterical' means 'losing control of your emotions' - which is another cliche which has historically been used to describe women when suggesting they might not be up to leadership roles. So between you two and the general knowledge any media junkie/sociologically aware person would have about the inferences in 'hysterical', I've actually been "confronted" with extra reason to think Price very likely did know the impact of his words. And, like DemonTim, I didn't doubt that he was trying to belittle her.

As Romeohwho pointed out, no-one called it misogynist, so it remains odd that you are so passionate about this conversation when no-one else is, and yet simultaneously you're not actually across the detail of the conversation. Seems a mismatch, right?

 

[Blommerz]

Ah, I didn't actually say you were a fake poster. Of course in the world of BF any new account who pops up suddenly in a thread with passionate views is looked at pretty sussly, but you (being apparently new to BF and AFL) wouldn't have known that, so it's odd that you assumed I was accusing you...?

And, no, I haven't been "confronted by logic, reason, and evidence to contrary". All we've been confronted by regarding 'evidence' is dictionary definitions. What has otherwise happened is DemonTim has confirmed Price was deliberately trying to wind up Van Badham, and you have confirmed that you think 'hysterical' means 'losing control of your emotions' - which is another cliche which has historically been used to describe women when suggesting they might not be up to leadership roles. So between you two and the general knowledge any media junkie/sociologically aware person would have about the inferences in 'hysterical', I've actually been "confronted" with extra reason to think Price very likely did know the impact of his words. And, like DemonTim, I didn't doubt that he was trying to belittle her.

As Romeohwho pointed out, no-one called it misogynist, so it remains odd that you are so passionate about this conversation when no-one else is, and yet simultaneously you're not actually across the detail of the conversation. Seems a mismatch, right?

1. Kidd Vicious replied to me in that manner - you were supporting him in your response. Do not misrepresent the conversation to suit your agenda.

2. Actually, I would say clear definitions followed by logical analysis has been presented in this debate. That, and the actual footage of the Q&A session. You've rejected those and inserted your own opinions (which are unsupported, save by some random movie) into the discussion. Hijacking the definition posited (being overcome with emotion) and suggesting that that has a sexist connotation is disingenuous - especially because you haven't proffered any evidence to support this.
Suggesting a "sociologically aware person" would agree with you is ludicrous. As someone who has studied sociology, graduated with distinction in philosophy, and minored in politics - all of which required copious amounts of gender studies - I can tell you, as a sociologically aware (more so than you, I'd wager) person, you're wrong. And no amount of movies you present as "support" for your contention will change that unequivocal and external truth. No amount of language manipulation on your behalf, or ad hominems will, either.

3. Read above, I have clearly delineated quite a number of responses that mention sexism and misogyny. Do not misrepresent that. You engaging in something akin to plugging your fingers in your ears and humming over the top of evidence to the contrary, again, simply doesn't hold any water.

 

[Blommerz]

As a

Ah, I didn't actually say you were a fake poster. Of course in the world of BF any new account who pops up suddenly in a thread with passionate views is looked at pretty sussly, but you (being apparently new to BF and AFL) wouldn't have known that, so it's odd that you assumed I was accusing you...?

And, no, I haven't been "confronted by logic, reason, and evidence to contrary". All we've been confronted by regarding 'evidence' is dictionary definitions. What has otherwise happened is DemonTim has confirmed Price was deliberately trying to wind up Van Badham, and you have confirmed that you think 'hysterical' means 'losing control of your emotions' - which is another cliche which has historically been used to describe women when suggesting they might not be up to leadership roles. So between you two and the general knowledge any media junkie/sociologically aware person would have about the inferences in 'hysterical', I've actually been "confronted" with extra reason to think Price very likely did know the impact of his words. And, like DemonTim, I didn't doubt that he was trying to belittle her.

As Romeohwho pointed out, no-one called it misogynist, so it remains odd that you are so passionate about this conversation when no-one else is, and yet simultaneously you're not actually across the detail of the conversation. Seems a mismatch, right?

As a further response to your "historical cliche" argument, I think you'll find that men have been subjected to the same cliche. Have you ever heard of the defense of provocation? Essentially, it is a defence to murder which was almost exclusively used on the basis that a man lost control of his emotions, became *hysterical*, and killed another man/the woman for sleeping with his wife/cheating on him. Rightly so, that defence was abolished in most Australian states (with Queensland still allowing it), and it was a clearly gendered defence. But the point is that the man was seemingly overcome with emotion (thus hysterical), causing him to lose sense of reason.

Do you still think the word has a gendered meaning? You probably do, because your argument seems to be "a movie supports my viewpoint, therefore I'm right"

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Calm down, Blommerz. You're getting hysterical, and I don't want you to lose control of your emotions when you call your University and ask them why your gender studies didn't cover some of the basics.

Once you've had a lie down and a cool glass of water, you can peruse this further reading and show them how they let you down.

 

[romeohwho]

Lol the thesaurus is overreaching

Isn't that what you're claiming to do though? You're claiming what he meant by hysterical aligns with what you say it does

Well I was having a play on his words, but if you must. How would you define these other terms that are provided in that thesaurus link from good ol' bloomsy- misanthrope( hater of mankind?) anti-feminist ( opposed to feminist ideals?) male chauvinist ( thinks he is superior to women?).
None of them are actually mean the same thing as misogyny do they? (hater of women)
All a becoming a bit of a yawn though, isn't it.

 

[DemonTim]

Calm down, Blommerz. You're getting hysterical, and I don't want you to lose control of your emotions when you call your University and ask them why your gender studies didn't cover some of the basics.

Once you've had a lie down and a cool glass of water, you can peruse this further reading and show them how they let you down.

Oh dear. You're claiming a university should be using opinion pieces from the guardian as a source point for knowledge?


Just one of a number of terms including emotional, irrational and shrill, all essentially meaning the same thing: “crazy lady” or one who may or may not be on her period

So now emotional and irrational are the same as hysterical? They are both gendered terms?

You've referenced an opinion piece, with very little in the way of external references

By the way. Homosexuality was also listed in the DSM until 1973. I wouldn't say current usage of that word is in any way influenced by that historical listing.

 

[Blommerz]

Calm down, Blommerz. You're getting hysterical, and I don't want you to lose control of your emotions when you call your University and ask them why your gender studies didn't cover some of the basics.

Once you've had a lie down and a cool glass of water, you can peruse this further reading and show them how they let you down.

Nice presentation of some logical and reasoned argument there. The glaring lack of reason or logic simply shows precisely your lack of argument. You can no longer support a position you've held so vehemently and thus resort to such methods, stemming, no doubt, from the uncomfortable feeling you have from being proven, time and again, wrong.

That feeling, Tobruk, is called cognitive dissonance. It'll fade once you starting actually engaging your brain. I'm sure you have one; it just seems that you're not really using it.

I note that you didn't click "reply", in order to throw that sledge. Perhaps you're afraid of being beaten down by clear logic, evidence, and reason again? Seems to be that you've lost every single one of our jousts thus far.

 

[DemonTim]

Well I was having a play on his words, but if you must. How would you define these terms that are provided in that thesaurus link from good ol' bloomsy- misanthrope( hater of mankind?) anti-feminist ( opposed to feminist ideals?) male chauvinist ( thinks he is superior to women?).
None of them are actually mean the same thing as misogyny do they? (hater of women)
Yawn.

You realise that a thesaurus lists synonyms AND related concepts, yes?
You're just playing on his words, but you've come to defend the point made?