asbestosman wrote:Oh, you mean a group can be held responsible for the actions of one person? That's an interesting admission there. I wonder why it only seems to apply in that case. Perhaps I should read on.
No, that's not what I mean. If it were, that's what I would have said. I said, and I think pretty clearly, that Will's behavior would REFLECT poorly on the MI. That is far different than saying the MI should be held responsible for his actions.
This is just a reality of life. When a business organization hires a celebrity for advertisements, if that celebrity is caught doing something horrible, that celebrity will be dropped. Why? No one is saying that the business is "responsible" for the celebrity's actions. But what the business knows is that the actions of the celebrity has the potential of negatively affecting their business, anyway.
You mean like this board. I suppose that goes without saying. Of course, it's hard to think too highly of a board that doesn't have much of a vested interest in even the appearance of decency and morality--at least until the lights are turned on it.
Oh, please. How many times have board members protested the vulgar actions of others aside from Will? Quite a bit.
When men are thinking about their own sexual attractiveness, they tend to tie it to things such as physical fitness, leadership, intelligence, and maybe a sense of humor or possibly compassion. Now, if Will is to insult us by calling us weak, cowards, fools, etc., what do you think his insults imply? Money probably fits in there too. Calling this place the trailer-park isn't a coincidence.
So you're saying Will just tends to insult people based on their sexual attractiveness regardless of gender. Well, if you can think up of a word that describes that tendency, I will happily apply that to Will.
What Will did was wrong, vile, and inexcusable. However, was actually a misogynist? I'm not completely sure about that. He's certainly disrespectful to women, but he is also disrespectful to men. I will candidly admit that I found his insults to females to be the most troubling. However, I am now questioning whether that's because he's truly worse with women, or just because we as a society are less tolerant to that nonsense when directed at women.
That could be.
You think I'm off base here? One person joked about Emma getting violent to Joseph about polygamy and that was generally laughed at. I pointed out that it's only funny because it's violence against men. People would be outraged if a man beat his wife just because she was sleeping around. That is the double-standard in our culture. I didn't want to harp on it at the time, but I do want people to be aware that it exists. Is it justified by the reality that woman are far more likely to actually be victims? I do not think so. Abuse is abuse regardless of how common or relatively common it is.
I don't disagree with this.
Also, I sometimes wonder if we're over-sensitive about misogyny. Nobody in his right mind would accuse Lucretia of misogyny for bringing up Pahoran's panties. However, when males hurl feminine words at other males, the cries of misogyny are loud. I personally think men simply shouldn't do it--there are other ways of being insulting to men without needlessly offending women. However, I don't think it's necessarily indicative of misogyny.
Will had a pattern of behavior with women. He either engaged in insulting their sexual attractiveness, or he was very flirtatious with them. He seemed to have difficulty engaging in sustained discussion of topics with women. Whether through insults or flirtatious behavior, he was dismissive towards women.