Degrees of Misogyny

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Bowser, Nov 13, 2015.

  1. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    But you defend here a particular interpretation of its meaning. And this meaning is, IMHO, a quite wide one for a character flaw. Because it seems to include also people who prefer, for whatever reasons, some traditional cutural values which require to handle different genders differently. Or which believe, for whatever reasons, into some prejudices about gender differences. Above are clearly not character flaws.
    This is what one would hope for.
    In the sense that a man accused of being this has, essentially, no possibility to prove his innocence. Which is what makes such things dangerous. Of course I do not think that one can justly apply this to all men.
    Hitler's rise to power was a consequence of his winning democratic elections. One can think ot the Reichstagsbrand as a conspiracy, but it happened when Hitler was already Kanzler. South American fascism was nothing close to totalitarian, if you use it not simply as a bad word, but somehow close to what Hannah Arendt wrote.
    I have nothing against discussing degrees of some type of behavior, which is prevalent and plays a big role in Western society. But I think it is not a good idea using a word for this which describes a character flaw. I think one has to distinguish several things: Character flaws, which are a problem of a small minority (or to present it like a "character flaw" is not correct). Then beliefs about typical properties of women, which may be wrong, "prejudices", overgeneralizations of a few own experiences, whatever - but they are certainly not character flaws, even if wrong. And support of some cultural values. You have any right not to like these cultures. But this does not define a character flaw of those who prefer them.
    Words which combine such very different meanings are very problematic in discussions. Because one word for many different things provokes misunderstandings. Scientists have a simple solution for such problems: Invent different words for different things.
    And let's clarify again: I do not want to redefine anything. I was starting with the standard German meanings of the translations of misogynist, I have not found many variants of these translations. Moreover, I doubt that your understanding is supported by the majority, even in the forum.
    Nice try to reduce this to something personal. But don't worry, it is wrong. Why should I feel threatened by American stupidity, if I do not plan even to travel to US already now? Then, I'm not a misogynist myself, thus, not personally threatened. The thing I feel threatened is of the US becoming totalitarian. In this case, for those who live in that society it does not make a difference, how the subhuman status is named, enemy of the people, or enemy of the animals, or misogynist - one has to be afraid to be named that way, because it is fatal, and one cannot defend oneself. But even if I would commiserate with the poor Americans, this would not be my main concern. I would be afraid because the US is the largest military power, thus, this is dangerous for the survival of the mankind as a whole.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No, I didn't. I accepted the dictionary definition and common usage as specified in the OP of the thread, as a standard and common basis for discussion. It's an English word with a meaning.
    What do you mean by "prefer, for whatever reasons"? If they "prefer" to hold women in prejudicial disdain and contempt according to traditional cultural values, that would be misogyny, yes. So?
    Again, so? His rise to power and establishment of totalitarian rule in Germany was the success of a now well-documented conspiracy. This is famous, obvious, historical record.
    Not for lack of trying, via conspiracy - and with greater success than "nothing close", in Honduras, in El Salvador, in Argentina, in Peru, in Chile, in Paraguay. How about Cuba - not totalitarian, or not founded via conspiracy?
    Try to keep up: roughly, we are using sexism for the behavior, misogyny for the mental/character stuff. That is in line with the definitions of the terms. You want to discuss a character flaw without using any terms that refer to a character flaw - that isn't reasonable.
    Nonsense. Inculcated and rewarded character flaws can pervade a given society.
    Accused by whom?

    If by the disinterested police enforcing some nonexistent law you for some reason fear is going to oppress the men of America, he doesn't have to prove anything - it's assumed.
    I don't know. Do you understand why people feel threatened by misogyny, especially when it is pervasive and unavoidable in their society?
    That contradicts your earlier post, in which you assigned the threat to "all men".
    And pretending misogyny is other than it is, rarer than it is, should be called something else, somehow helps ward off totalitarianism?

    Living in illusion is no defense against power.
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2016
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. wellwisher Banned Banned

    What is the word for the deeply felt ingrained prejudice some women when have against men? Men are from Mars and women are from Venus. Because they don't fully understand each other, both have their cross sexual prejudices formed by misunderstand and stereo-typing.

    It appears to me modern women do all the things they accuse men of. This subject demonstrates a deeply felt prejudice and sexism. One difference between men and women, is women tend to play by a dual standard, where certain behavior are considered valid for women, but not for men.

    If an all male school was to form this would be sexist. But if an all female school was to form this is considered progressive. Both are the exact same thing, but will be treated with a dual standard. Men allow the dual standard and female accept the dual standard, because men and women appear to assume women need the handicap. This is where they both seem agree.

    What is interesting, liberalism appears to be based on the female mind, since this POV is also based on the dual standard, where their side gets to do the things they accuse the other side of. Only white can be racist, even if blacks do the same things. Conservatives are the men the crowd and might allow the dual standard since they both feel the other side needs handicap to keep up.

    It is important for the men not do dumb things down, by allowing the dual standard. They need to stick to the same standard for all. This is how we all become equal; same rules for all.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    From the post "Top Signs you are reading woo":

    4) Webster Rescue. Often when a crank is losing an argument he will resort to redefining words to try to ameliorate a previous error. For example: "The results you have presented show greater than 100% efficiency, which is thermodynamically impossible." "Well, really, what's the definition of efficiency? Can't it mean that . . . " He will then search out various online dictionaries until he finds a definition that is at least not entirely clear, at which point he will claim that that's the definition that is in common use.

    Some others that might apply to Schm:

    2) The sheeple claim. Once a crank uses the word "sheeple" for the first time - to distinguish his own brilliance from the dull conformity of all the other "sheep" on a given forum - you know he's all woo. Use of this word is nearly inevitable for some types of cranks, especially 9/11 truthers and UFO believers.

    6) The secret government conspiracy. Sometimes when a crank is challenged, and he feels he is unable to defend his point further, he will pull out the government conspiracy. He WOULD have more proof for his claim, you see, but the government is trying to suppress the information because blah blah blah. In general you will get no more useful information after this point, since if you try, he will accuse YOU of being part of the conspiracy.

    14) Prove Me Wrong. Cranks who propose an unusual theory (say, that UFO's are space aliens) will often not listen to alternative explanations that better explain the data. Instead they will propose their woo and ask "can you prove that that's NOT what's happening? Can you prove that that sighting was just a weather balloon?" This lets them sit back and wait for someone to provide an impossible level of proof for the more-reasonable explanation.
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  8. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    In other cultures this is not considered to be "prejudicial disdain and contempt". You seem to evaluate everything from the point of view of your culture. No problem in itself, but if you attribute your negative relations to what these people think, and in this way allege evil thoughts to them, this is simply wrong. Because almost all cultures think that living in agreement with the cultural values is advantageous for everybody. So if, for example. the society supports some division of labor, with rearing of small children left to women, all (women, man) tend to think that this is better as to the children, as to the women, as to the men, and nobody thinks that it is degrading for women to care about small children.

    I know there are some conspiracy theories, accusing American captalists, or, alternatively, Stalin to have helped Hitler to reach power. But, different from various coups, which require conspiracies, Hitler became the German Kanzler in the normal democratic way. Feel free to speculate about campaign contributors, but this type of conspiracy is everywhere in democracies.
    I would not exclude completely conspiracies to reach power, but my point is that totalitarian power has to be based on popular movements. Once a coup succeeds, this is not yet a totalitarian power. You need some mass base to control everybody. In which of the countries you have listed there was such a mass base I have to admit I don't know. Cuba has certainly created such a mass base. In part, it was there, because without it the revolution would have lost (as later the same Che has lost in Bolivia), in part it has been created after the victory of the revolution.
    That's fine, and I would support those who support that one has to make a difference, and disagree with those who argue its all the same.

    Not nonsense - in this case, it is the inculcation and reward for the character flaw which causes the problem.
    Initially be everybody who looks for an ad hominem after losing a discussion. In later states of a totalitarian society by anonymous reports to the secret police, with more serious consequences.
    I understand that women may feel threatened by the small minority with the character defect. If somebody feels threatened by something pervasive in their society, they may try to create another society or so, but this is not a majority opinion, because if the majority does not like something pervasive in their society they change it. So, no, I don't understand the people who feel threatened by your version of mysogyny.

    The misunderstanding I pointed out, from the use of the same name for quite different things. I use "misogynist" for the character problem of a small minority. I'm not a member of this small minority. But if I live in a society, I don't fight the cultural rules of this society. If I feel threatened, I prefer to emigrate. If there is a minor disagreement, which does not threaten me, I accept the status of an outsider.
    Using different words for different things helps to ward off totalitarianism, because totalitarianism depends on mingling something common to every human being (so that it becomes impossible to defend yourself if accused) with some horrible threat to everybody (so that those accused deserve horrible punishment).
    I would recommend you to think about this.
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    So? Some cultures foster misogyny, often without being self-aware. This is a problem, according to people in my culture.
    My culture, which includes reasoned and informed analysis of these matters, yes.
    They are evil and negative only according to the reasoning and analysis and viewpoint of some people in my culture (Western enlightenment), so no problem - right?
    Your assumption that the minority is small, has little influence, etc, is uninformed and careless. Your attempted restriction of "misogynist" is partly irrelevant (the criteria for assigning the label "misogynist" would be a very small part of this discussion), and partly a willful refusal to accept correction of an obvious error. You don't like what the word "misogyny" means, so you simply refuse to acknowledge it.
    Is the experience of living with a pervasive threat, one that even a majority of the people find difficult to recognize or acknowledge let alone change, unknown to you?
    To where would you recommend the women of America emigrate? Or is it that they should accept their status as outsiders?
    Using the same words for the same things likewise. Using the right word, for its meaning, is the key.
    Sounds like the workings of misogyny in an oppressive patriarchy, yep. How does refusing to discuss misogyny help ward this off?
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2016
  10. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Nice try. I use sheeple. But mainly as a stimulus for those sheeple to change. It is not about some own brilliance, but about the decision not to trust the mainstream media, but to evaluate them, to learn to distinguish good sources from propaganda.
    Too much paddoboy reading that you also start to apply conspiracy accusations?

    If there is a problem or not, is something which could be found out in civilized discussions. Unfortunately, there is almost no civilized discussion between different cultures.

    If you think that only in Western culture there are reasoned and informed people, you are wrong.
    How often I have to repeat myself until you start to understand that this is wrong? I give up. If you think that a majority of men are misogynists, that means, have a serious character problem, I would classify you as a case of misandry.
    No. And that's why I think that women in the West have no such problems. Ok, I see that such a feeling of threat starts to appear in many Western countries in regions with high numbers of immigrants, but this is a different question.
    The women of America are just fine, they live in an almost feminist country. Sweden may be even more feminist, but be careful, it has also a lot of immigrants and related problems. I think the question about emigration is more important for men.
    Not at all. Sounds like you have completely failed to understand my point.
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You're the guy asserting the existence of cultures who regard misogyny as normal and not evil.
    I keep hoping you will come to your senses, and quit making a a fool of yourself.
    And if I don't, you will rethink your responses here, reread what I've been posting, and get a clue before reposting this crapola. Deal?
    Then why do you deny even the possibility, in this case?
    You tell 'em, tiger. I recommend you include your definition of "feminist", along with "misogyny" and so forth, so they take it in the right spirit - rather than seriously. Because fear of the secret police being informed is about the silliest male excuse for refusing to acknowledge misogyny they will have ever heard - and they will have heard quite a few.
    You cannot learn about the role of misogyny in totalitarian patriarchies - Saudi Arabia, say - as well as Western societies, if you refuse to discuss the matter, or even allow it to be named.
  12. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    No. A small minority with mental problems who hate women - what I think is named misogyny - is not considered normal.
    Don't worry about me. Ok, you present me as a fool, but only by misinterpreting what I have repeatedly clarified and corrected. In this way, you make a fool of yourself.
    The problems are not caused by people with character defects, but by media and politicians who distribute hate. You seem to attribute such problems to some people with character defect. I attribute such things differently.

    But, just for clarification, how many % of the American men have, in your opinion, that character problem named misogyny? For what I would name misogyny I would expect something in the 1-5% range, and would not wonder much if it goes slightly higher, say into the 10%, but for this I would ask for a serious research before accepting it.
    Thanks. This clarifies something. I'm obviously now somebody who has to search for excuses - instead of, say, searching for arguments or so. Probably I'm a misogyny-denier or so. Note also the sexist "male" in this phrase - as if it would matter.
    How often I have to repeat that I don't refuse to discuss any matter, or refuse to name it? I think you are wrong about the existence of a lot of men with a character trait named misogyny, and I think you mingle very different things, which are worth to be differently named. This is, btw, part of a discussion, which I do not refuse.
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Don't blame others for your obvious short comings.
    Your political and scientific views reflect someone who is saying "Look at me!, Look at me, I'm different, I'm not a sheep!! by adhering to your treasured independant [actually rather ironic and hypocritical] scientific opinion, and your unreal out of this world political view.Like a badge of honor.
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You think wrong. You can't change the meaning of the word by repeating what you want it to mean. All the people you are replying to here are using the standard English dictionary meaning of that word, helpfully posted for your education in the very first post of this thread, the one that established the thread topic. When we talk about misogyny, that's what we are talking about.

    Like this:
    That's misogyny according to the meaning and usage of native speakers of English, well educated, employing a standard dictionary, who want to discuss the issue not the name. If you reply by deciding to mean something else by "misogyny", or try to turn the focus into who is a "misogynist", or some other such dodge, you are not dealing with the question.

    And yes, by all the evidence that character flaw or set of flaws is common - even dominant, in many societies. Such as Saudi Arabia. But obviously there is a range, among different societies and between different people - so the OP is not immediately dismissed: "degrees of misogyny" is a concept that might very well make sense, with regard to both a given individual and their culture.

    What problems are you talking about?
  15. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    I have explained what I mean, you simply don't want to accept this.

    I'm not arguing about the meaning of the word. I'm arguing about the point that there is a small minority of men with a character problem who hate women. Feel free not to name this minority, in your Newspeak, I have used "misogyny as I use it" to name this. But this minority you cannot talk about is a problematic minority. And there is a solution for the problem of this minority: segregation. Avoiding contact between this minority and women. The majority of those who hate women do not want to have contact with them, so that this solution is possible and unproblematic. There is a minority among them which could be named psychotic, because they, on the one hand, hate women, but on the other hand, want to have contact with them. They may be really dangerous, but, as a minority of a minority, they are rare exceptions. If the threat caused by rare exceptions becomes a pervasive one, this is a problem of the society, which creates unjustified threat feelings.

    You want to name some some other, obviously much larger, group of men "misogynists". You tell me that this is the standard meaning, but, sorry, I do not really believe. I see your version as an ideological interpretation. Because, IIRC, you see a lot of these "misogynists" among those men who like to have contact with women. They may have different cultural values, and different opinions about what is typical for women, but this is a result of education and knowledge, and not a character problem. Once we agree that being a "misogynist" is a character problem, there is a contradiction, one about the content: A name for a character problem is used to name something which is result of education and knowledge.
    And now we have an issue about the content. You accuse people educated in a different culture, who base their beliefs on a different knowledge base about human behavior which is supported by this culture, to have a character flaw. Ok, discussing what are character flaws is a different can of worms, but I think the main point is that a character flaw is something one cannot get rid of, it is permanent. Instead, cultural influences may be quite deep, but can be changed. And, more important, people who recognize that they live in a different culture can accept in their behavior the rules of this different culture, and even if there remains some discomfort, this is a personal discomfort of those immigrants.

    This side remark was about problems which can cause a large group of people to live with a pervasive threat.
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Coverture, for instance. Once upon a time, Western European and American legal structures asserted a married woman had no independent existence, and that her entire humanity was subsumed under her husband's identity. Based on this idea, women could not own property, and were not even allowed to govern themselves. In 1993, as an example, North Carolina finally did away with husband's prerogative to rape.

    And the whole time, it was a struggle to convince people that viewing women as fucktoys was misogynistic. That is to say, Americans did not consider coverture prejudicial disdain and contempt despite the functional reality. And women still aren't out of that, yet. The right to rape one's wife was so important that we didn't actually get rid of it entirely; in thirty-some states it's a different charge if a man rapes his wife, and under those laws it largely doesn't matter if it's the wife at home or the estranged wife.

    And the whole time, the reason it was a struggle was that people were expected to pretend that it wasn't misogyny, but, rather, simply the way things were.

    Racism, in this country, has long been the way things are; the strange episode in Oregon raises an obvious question that Americans just can't wrap their heads around insofar as pretty much everybody knows that if these weren't white people they wouldn't have survived long enough to show us all just how stupid they are. That is, people get it at this point, but in the early hours of the insurgency, the question loomed.

    And in the question of racism we've seen in recent events some of the manner of desperation as the way things were and still are is called to account before equality, justice, and the American principles we perpetually espouse despite our behavior to the other and hope to someday fulfill. Rick Perry had to go so far as to call a massacre an accident; that's how stupid the racists have gotten. And no cop yet can explain why a white person pointing a gun at police is seen as less of a danger to life and limb than an unarmed black man. The problem is that the rest of us can't look at our minority neighbors suffering under our American scourge and tell them that this is the time, that this is when it finally breaks.

    And when it comes to desperation, you don't get much better a microcosmic distillation of American bigotry than the Gay Fray that crept onto ballots in 1990, erupted in the discourse in 1992, and was over before a quarter-century passed, with the traditionalists losing. The desperation throughout: They never had a single genuine fact of any consequence about their argument. For instance, the idea of "ownership culture"; Judith Butler's assertion of a societal structure in which the family is the unregulated sexual property of the father has always been exactly creepy and sounded somewhat extreme, but what if it is the last explanation standing? One of the things we get from the Gay Fray is a re-examination of that notion in another context, and yes, it holds consistent; the same principles and psychological devices are in play whether it's a reality-television moralist molesting his sisters or a televangelist explaining to parents the benefits of a summer camp where they sexually harass your children until they conform to traditionalist gendertypes. In the end the Sixth Circuit had to functionally recriminalize homosexuality in order to help Ohio unmarry a dead man and send the case to the Supreme Court. That's all it took. And as we see in Alabama, they're still not ready to give up.

    And in all of these cases, that their individual acculturation emerging from a cultural structure intended to reinforce this prejudice and discrimination should view their beliefs and behaviors as not prejudicial or discriminatory speaks nothing of the basic functions and outcomes.

    And that's the point. One of the interesting things about, say, the American context, is that we apparently keep setting our standards too high. Microcosmically, we might recall Louisiana, where a few years ago the legislature passed and the governor signed into law a bill that allowed the state to start funding religious schools. This was controversial enough as it was, but the whole thing became a farce when the law's supporters fell into shock and horror after a Muslim school applied for funds. One legislator actually came right out and said it, that she wouldn't have voted for the bill if she knew religion included Islam.

    We have set standards for ourselves; see the Equal Protection Clause of Amendment XIV, for instance. And from the outset this was problematic; we only have the Nineteenth Amendment we do because the federal government successfully argued in court that when the Fourteenth guaranteed equal protection to all persons in a state, it did not intend to include women as people. Preventing woman suffrage was that important.

    We keep doing this over and over again, and in American history we have enough practice to reasonably assert that what they really meant when they said all men are created equal; they did not mean mankind or humankind, but, rather, white Christian males.

    Or, you know, they hoped that something better would come of our posterity.

    And we can certainly say the way things were are the way things were, but that doesn't change the functions and outcomes.

    Sometimes it's simply a matter of function and outcome.

    The members of all communities, including nations and whole civilisations, are infused with the prevailing ideologies of those communities. These, in turn, create attitudes of mind which include certain capacities and equally positively exclude others.

    The ideologies may be so ancient, so deep-seated or so subtle that they are not identified as such by the people at large. In this case they are often discerned only through a method of challenging them, asking questions about them or by comparing them with other communities.

    Such challenge, description, or questioning, often the questioning of assumptions, is what frequently enables a culture or a number of people from that culture to think in ways that have been closed to most of their fellows.

    ―Emir Ali Khan


    Khan, Emir Ali. "Sufi Activity". Sufi Thought and Action. Ed. Idries Shah. London: Octagon Press, 1990.
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  17. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    The Paiute tribe of Native Americans signed a treaty with Congress a century and a half ago, but for reasons unknown, the document does not have the signatures of all the required representatives of the U.S. government. This means that the land still belongs to them, legally. They're planning on evicting the the armed white men themselves, since no one else will.
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I would have no problem talking about your minority there, in an appropriate thread. This thread is about misogyny. Misogyny is not restricted like that.
    The only way to segregate that minority would be by force of law - calling the police when they behave badly. But that topic belongs on another thread - this one is about misogyny.
    Not "misogynist". The word, and the dictionary definition in use throughout this thread by all these native speakers of English, and the issue we want to discuss in this thread, is "misogyny". We want to address "degrees of misogyny". I don't give a dead rat what your cutoff line is for labeling somebody a "misogynist", and I want you to take that entire irrelevant pile of bs to another thread where it's out of the way.
    No, I don't. I want you to quit trying to sidetrack this discussion of misogyny into your paranoid namecalling dead end. You, not me, are the one trying to pin the label "misogynist" on this or that group of men. Do this elsewhere, ok?
    If their cultural values include adopting personal attitudes of prejudicial disdain and contempt for women, their cultural values include misogyny. That's a character flaw, inculcated by their culture. This kind of thing is familiar to us all - we all know that different cultures tend to inculcate different character flaws. Greed, selfishness, indifference to cruelty, religious fanaticism, easy loss of temper, these vary between cultures as well as between people.
    It's not an "accusation", but a description. And character itself is a product of upbringing, culture, education, etc - why would the flaws be the only part not amenable to growth and change?
  19. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    No. There is the civilized way, they don't want contact with women, women don't want contact with them, so all one needs is to have some places where those misogynists can stay, where women are not allowed (which is no problem in a society with private property and house-owner rights) and a way which allows women to know that this particular guy hates women, so that they would not approach him in the public.
    Ok, so it appears that people from some other cultures have character flaws, because they accept their own cultural values.

    This is a place where to continue a discussion no longer makes sense for me.
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Unfortunately, this is false. They do want contact with women. Hence the threat faced by women, from this dangerous minority as well as those afflicted by misogyny in general.
    So either these guys or all women are to be identified, labeled, and excluded from the public streets, political venues, places of business, public transportation, and so forth.

    I don't think you can do that without the help of the police.
    Yes. Including quite possibly the US culture - if we could ever start a discussion on degrees of misogyny, we might be able to address this issue. Can you think of a way we could manage that?
  21. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    The statement was about the unnamed minority which I have used to name misogynists, not your misogynists. This minority simply hates women, therefore does not want contact with them, so that no police is necessary to force them to avoid contact. Among them, there will be a small psychotic minority, which combines this hate with sexual urge and is unable to control this, but this minority of a minority is small enough not to present a general danger.

    It was not about those men who like women, but have the wrong culture.
    I think if you want to argue about culture, you should argue about the culture, and not present this discussion as one about personal faults of those educated in this culture. Because these men will, naturally, see what happens here - presenting them as misogynists even if they love women - as primitive misandry by some feminists, instead of a reasonable proposal for the improvement of a common culture.
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    What does that even mean?
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I haven't bothered labeling anyone a "misogynist".
    Misogynists as you label them do not in general want to avoid all contact with women. The percentage of them who feel sexual urges is not a small minority, just for starters, and hatred of the kind you describe is as likely to motivate obsessive contact as avoidance.
    Prejudicial disdain and contempt for women marks misogyny regardless of whether the afflicted person "likes women" or not. And they can be - by observation are, normally - inculcated by culture. And they are present in varying degrees.
    Misogyny is indeed intellectually crippling in some ways. We all have our struggles.

Share This Page