Degrees of Misogyny

It seems that the participants here are not talking into account the dichotomy and dissonance that plays into "misogyny."

We are dealing with two diametrically opposed definitions of "women" here.

There's the women that walk into the bar with reactions (spoken aloud or as silent thought) - "Lookie, lookie - here comes nookie!" and the subsequent change when a mate points out "Those are those snobby Mensa bitches from Harvard. They don't put out - why, they act like they're as good as men!" "Oh yeah, you're right - can't stand those cunts. Besides, look what just walked in now - the chicks from DBS (Dumb blonde sorority)!" "Alright! Now we're talking! I hear they suck a mean..." Etc. Etc.

They LIKE those women. But they HATE those other bitches and avoid them whenever possible. To varying degrees I think this is what drives common "misogyny."


See? Is actually easy to comprehend when you have all the underlying facts...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So misogyny does not exist, on your planet, unless it is restricted to a vanishingly small and separable minority of men in a given culture, those men afflicted are identified and deplored by the vast majority of men in a given culture, and those men afflicted voluntarily avoid women whenever possible.

Setting the science fiction fantasy aside, we return to the thread: a discussion of degrees of misogyny as it, and they, exist within existing human cultures and societies.

They regard all women - the ones they "hate", the ones they "like" - with prejudicial contempt and disdain. And they do not avoid the ones they "hate" whenever possible - they go out of their way, occasionally, to harass and abuse them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I fully agree. I wasn't disputing any of that - in fact, I had the exact same thought after the fact as regards the 'They regard all women - the ones they "hate", the ones they "like" ' but let it go. I figured someone else would point it out...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is the meaning of misogyny which gives me the German translation. It was, BTW, you who has decided to discuss this minority further in #227, trying to make even this minority fit into your description.

Contempt and disdain seems to me something quite different from hate, not?

And what to do to get rid of it is quite problematic. Because, (at least this is what the German translations tell me) everybody is free to disdain everybody else, and there is no human right not to be disdained.

 

Can't help you there. If you won't take correction from the OP, native speakers of English, the standard dictionaries of the language, and the common courtesy of an attempted discussion thread, you're on your own.

Not really. Debatable, for sure. There's a continuum, clearly, at which severe degrees approach extremes. At any rate, the thread term "misogyny" obviously and by definition includes such a continuum - so that's what we're here to discuss.

Is there a human right not be harassed, persecuted, treated with contempt by strangers, while walking down the public street or otherwise going about one's business?

 

Discourse Dilemma

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

—I—​

I recall a round I had with one of my colleagues in a discussion about racism some years ago. When I used the phrase "background racism", a term akin to background radiation, he was most displeased; while this concept does not, in my opinion, indict any one individual, we ought not be surprised at the notion that many people still resent it and want to believe they are utterly, completely, and absolutely free of any racism about their perspective or character whatsoever.

Ingrained prejudice. The quote from Emir Ali Khan↗ keeps finding its way into my discussions. But in that earlier post I also cracked a morbid line:

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.​

I should add to that at this point that I've had all of two qualifying conversations about the Snack Club Uprising with flesh and blood faces in my corner of the Universe―that would be excluding the one in which my daughter asked what was going on, I explained the situation to her, and she cracked a joke about Republicans along the way―and in both I found myself asking a version of that question: Can anyone tell me why a white guy threatening and pointing a gun at you is less of a threat to life and limb than an unarmed black man?

Or borrowing from a post in Politics↗, something goes here about how part of the reason we saw these insurrectionists as harmless long enough for them to prove the point is that they weren't other people. Someone I know who thinks she's not racist, and I would generally agree, wondered what police should do, then, when they feel their life is in danger, but changed the subject when I asked the question of the white guy with the gun compared to the unarmed black man.

I would suggest that "background racism", as such―ingrained prejudice, or, prevailing ideologies that include certain capacities and positively exclude others―still haunts the human endeavor; in our own American society, the phenomenon is pretty apparent.

—II—​

The analogy to misogyny seems obvious. Presuming according to the philosophical principle of charity, we absolutely must consider degrees of misogyny; this also ought to be evident, perhaps, in how frequently one might observe someone disdaining the idea of their own misogyny while engaging in or promoting misogynistic beliefs or behaviors. Like "background racism", people really seem to resent the general propositions of prevailing ideologies in a society, or their according participation, if they don't like the perceived character of the prevailing ideology.

In the end, this is basic ego defense; that much is clear. Its downstream effects in any one life and perception are a separate question; inevitably, some will feel somehow legitimately alienated, but more and more it seems others will hide behind them; consider a couple of our neighbors who occasionally post what seem nearly delusional rants about political opposition, but feel somehow sleighted by the response that rejects them outright or otherwise fails to fall to its knees and offer praise for saving others from themselves. No, seriously, what do these propagandists expect?

But they merely provide contrast. Under the principle of charity in philosophical discourse, we must necessarily presume the outrage against the proposition of ingrained prejudice against women genuine―that the other really does have no idea what we mean―unless demonstrated otherwise. But what does the outrage even mean? What if it is based on elements like redefining words to suit one's needs, an appeal to inherent misogyny as noble, and even the proposition that a woman does not have the right to set foot outside her home and expect to not be sexually harassed?

All of this merely clouds the issue of degrees of misogyny. It is interesting―or, so says me―that one of the early pushes for redefinition fled what really does look like a textbook consideration of degrees of misogyny. To wit, a misogynistic gaffe occurs, but is this offense really and genuinely sinister? In truth, the answer is only known specifically to the offender. Someday he might read the article the artist wrote, and recognize that he is the one who asked those godawful questions; is he embarrassed by the gaffe, or angry that she dared criticize?

But it is easy enough to see how the moment is the product of history. So he just gaffed. So what? It happens, and it's everything else that becomes defining. Or maybe he happens to be a properly chauvinist pig. We're always supposed to show some mercy toward products of history, so right there is a basic stratification: to the one, unintended offense; to the other, intentional offense.

—III—​

What do we make, though, of attempts to thread between those? This is where the redefinitions seem to come into play.

Start with a basic proposition from Know Nothingism; I've been using that line about how it's not a rape joke because it's a blonde joke, or a cop joke, or some such. Or we might consider that even though nobody can show us the historical transformation, an idea is suddenly something completely inexplicable except it's entirely different from what it's always been. Such strangeness is often difficult to measure, but one consistent aspect is that something is not prejudicial because the person who wants to believe or behave as such says so. To wit, if I proposed that selecting specifically for sex in pursuit of a reward has nothing to do with discrimination according to sex, how, exactly, might I demonstrate that? The contradiction is self-evident, so there really is no demonstration or logical proof that a specific behavior inherently precludes itself; all I'm left with is because I say so.

The result of this construct in application is that not only is the misogynystic offense "unintended" and therefore innocent, the other offends by being offended.

The more complicated the explanation of a behavior, the more easily it is deflected according to this method. Like the idea of inherent misogyny being noble. That idea, by this method, is wrong because its key element, misogyny, doesn't exist in that context; after all, whatever the historical principle has been, it doesn't hold now, even though nobody can explain why, simply because one says so. Objectification isn't objectification, because one says so.

This is but one among many ways of ducking issues; it is also the running trend in this and other similar discussions. In the end, this approach intends to disrupt discussion of misogyny in its various forms or degrees of severity.

—IV—​

The question arises at what point we are to start writing the arguments for other people. An illustration might easily be found in a disagreement 'twixt you and I about firearm violence and safety in our society. And perhaps you might look upon those concerned about domestic abusers and stalkers carrying guns as foul authoritarian gits, and I might accuse that you're willfully advocating for a more violent and dangerous society, but at what point are we supposed to actually start writing one another's argument? At what point are you supposed to write the argument against firearm access for criminals among the most dangerous in our society? At what point am I supposed to write the argument about how important it is to keep these criminals armed?

Similarly, there are avenues for discussing degrees of misogyny; over the course of not quite a month, though, the most prominent response is to push the discussion away from its subject; those who most desperately seek refuge from the word "misogyny" are also driving the discussion away from such considerations.

Degrees of misogyny? It is hardly an irrational proposition. It would certainly be an interesting and enlightening discussion if undertaken earnestly. But look at how much we are expected to waste for those who need the discussion framed to erase those degrees by reserving the word to extraordinary character and circumstance. Meanwhile, the question very nearly asserts itself: Certes, there is range for discussion of degrees of misogyny, but at what point do you or I, or Bells, or anyone else generally assembled on our side of the aisle need to start writing the opposing argument in order to proceed with that discussion?

—V—​

Futility is one thing. Intentional futility even worse. There is a reason I prefer psychological explanations, that they somehow can't help themselves. After all, ignorance is one thing; wilful evil, such as actually calculating this manner of digression, is another: evil. The line 'twixt sinister and stupid is often difficult to discern, though in truth I use the word "stupid" for the zing. Functionally, it's more appropriately expressed as evil or ignorant, because the one requires the other, and not vice-versa. Either way it's tragic, but still, the need to write an opposing argument in order to have the discussion at all eventually becomes significant; perhaps the issue is not so complex as we feel obliged to pretend.

 

A right not to be harassed and persecuted exists. But why should there be a right not to be treated with contempt? At least how I understand this word, it is the opposite of awe, respect, reverence, thus, of things one has no right to, but which one has to earn, to deserve.

One can reasonably argue that policemen and other guys paid by taxpayer's money have to behave with respect to everybody, given that this everybody may be a taxpayer. But private persons have no such obligation beyond basic rules of politeness, which is anyway in decline today. If I see no reason to esteem you, I can despise you, and you have to live with this, not?

 

Because She Doesn't Have the Right ....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Via The Stranger↱:

To the "cool guy" at the bar: Inviting yourself to my table and not leaving when asked does merit me calling you an asshole. I don't even care that you felt obligated to puff up your chest and call me a cunt to maintain your masculinity. You are entitled to your opinion. However, I don't think it's okay to threaten to beat my friend's "faggot ass" because of what I said to you. I also don't see the need to somehow find me on the street hours later and reiterate what a cunt I am and then slap me. I was really impressed at the speed with which you were able to walk away, even when I asked you to kindly come say it to my face. I understand. After all, you are much smaller than me, which can be weird seeing as I am female and you are male. If you feel up to it, I would still love to invite you again to say it to my face. Bring your gaggle of gal pals with you, so they can idly stand by and watch you assault me again. It will be great.​

This is all the anonymous author's fault, anyway, if we bear in mind the proposition↑ that she does not have the right to leave her home without being sexually harassed. If only she had remembered her place, that poor guy wouldn't have had to track her down later and assault her in order to remind her.

Something about degrees of misogyny goes here. And the desperate notions people propose in defense of misogyny.
____________________

Notes:

Anonymous. "I, Anonymous". The Stranger. 13 January 2016. TheStranger.com. 13 January 2016. http://bit.ly/1KdUkYe

 

I think everyone has the right to be treated with respect, at least by strangers in the public street, and that being treated with contempt is what has to be earned.

You disagree, and feel that men have the right to treat women - all women, any woman who crosses their path or with whom they do business of any kind - with contempt, whether they have earned it in any way except by being female or not.

And you are among the crowds and strangers and general public the women of your culture must deal with every day of their lives.

 

It occurs to me that there is another valence to the dynamic of the abstract question. That is to say, it is one thing to regard or treat a person with contempt based on certain factors, but people generally perceive injustice about contempt according to one's basic humanity. In the United States, we protected chosen behavior, according to a pretense of necessity, before we started addressing discrimination and contempt targeting a person's basic humanity.

There is, of course, an inherent complication about Judaism being postured in both racial/ethnic and behavioral realms, but it is unique among the world's major religions; only atheism has a similar claim, because we are all born inherently atheistic.

Christianity is chosen. Our society protects freedom of religion.

One is not born Christian the way one is born black, yet there was room to compromise on the basic humanity of people born in dark skin.

The question of compromise didn't really exist for women at the founding of the Republic; while we often teach Abigail Adams' famous letter to her husband, her appeal to remember the women, we do not generally teach children her husband's response, which was essentially to remind her that it wasn't happening.

Our neighbor↱ does not attend the basic difference: "But why should there be a right not to be treated with contempt?"

Consider if a website staff decided to hold a member up as an example of his nationality, and then effectively banish all people of that nationality or who identify according to its international heritage? I would assert that person and others of their nationality have the affirmative basic human right to not be treated with such contempt.

Perhaps our neighbor would disagree.

To the other, we might notice that nobody cries for the spammers websites ban and censor; in most cases the spammers don't even bother asserting their right to disrupt.

I mean, free speech is one thing, but if I storm the International Astronomical Union annual symposium and demand the entire agenda be bumped so that I can spend the whole time arguing that God created the Universe in seven days and that's why women shouldn't be allowed to terminate a pregnancy ever, under any circumstances, for any reason, they'll probably throw me out on my ass, and the only people who are going to worry about how my free speech was violated will be my friends on the Christian radio and televangelist circuit. No court in the country would return a verdict that my free speech right was violated by not being allowed to disrupt the IAU symposium.

But there will always be a troll somewhere on the internet to insist on my behalf that it was all a feminist conspiracy.

I digress.

At any rate, it simply occurs to me that there is a difference between what one is by nature and how one behaves. And, yes, I also strikes me to wonder if there is any correlation or overlap between diverse but thematically similar arguments asserting the right to certain antisocial behavior and an appearance of failure to distinguish between different natures and characters of contempt, disrespect, or even hatred.

Nobody is born a chauvinist; that part is acquired.

To the other, I might wear chick jeans, but I'll never have chick genes.

 

What means "treating with contempt"? The meaning of the German translation is that this would be no particular action, but only a personal relation. At most, a refusal to cooperate, and a violation of usual rules of politeness and courtesy - rules which are, today, violated by quite many people anyway.

Of course, there are forms of expressing contempt which one may classify as harassment. And the transition between the two will be a continuous one, without sharp boundaries, and it may be problematic to define that boundary. But to have personal feelings, inclusive feelings of contempt, to various other persons and groups of persons is clearly part of personal freedom. And if there is something like a freedom of opinion, this includes even the right to express such personal feelings.

If this no longer exists, I would name the result a totalitarian society with thought crimes.

Of course, personal feelings are often unjust. I agree that disdain based on something one cannot choose like race, nationality, or gender is unjust. But there is no right for just feelings from others. All one has a right for is the absence of harmful actions by others.

Of course. Whatever the website stuff decides, they own it, they decide. They may even violate their own rules. This will destroy only their own reputation. But why they decide to ban me - for being German, being a man, or being a whatever denier - it is their choice. If they allow me to use their website, fine, if not, what is the problem?

 

Everyday Hatred

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

They never can help themselves:

A few years ago, I wrote an essay for the New York Times Magazine questioning whether it was immoral to watch the Super Bowl, given the emerging evidence that football can cause brain damage.

My inbox was soon overflowing with ire. And as so often happens when people let themselves go, things turned weird in a hurry.

“I couldn’t help but think of a slutty girl I knew growing up,” one reader wrote. “I thought she had the biggest vagina I’d ever seen before until now … congrats dude, you have a bigger one.” Another anti-fan advised me to “change your tampon you woman.” Nearly all my haters accused me of harboring female genitalia, often characterized as large.

When I decided to write a book about my ethical struggle with football, I included these notes, along with an analysis of what such a pattern might mean: “On one level my correspondents simply wish to convey the exaggerated nature of my femininity. Still, it’s hard to ignore that a large vagina suggests an unconscious fear of male inadequacy. Is it possible that merely asking these guys to examine their motives for watching football made them feel small?

“We can say for sure that these men feel accused. That someone might make them feel guilty for watching football represents the ultimate gender betrayal. The standard punishment appears to be the revocation of one’s male genitalia.”

(Almond↱)​

So, this is the question that bugs me: Having spent the last quarter-century with the political spotlight glaring on homosexuals, and hearing so much about how boys are supposed to want to have sex with girls, and also recalling just how important it was in youth to be seen not just as heterosexual, but successfully so, it does occur that I sometimes wonder why the thing we're all supposed to want is also an insult.

Seriously. Anybody who wants pussy ought to stop and think about why they want it the next time they decide to feminize a man as means of insult.

Something about what people want and what they hate. Human beings are wonderful mysteries.
____________________

Notes:

Almond, Steve. "I love my Fox News enemies: What I learned from the most hateful emailers in the world". Salon. 25 January 2016. Salon.com. 26 January 2016. http://bit.ly/1PzhGPr

 

Well I think it wrong to call anyone a term in hopes of dismissing their argument, its simply an Ad Hominem. "You say X is true, therefor you are Y!" Y being something we all agree is bad, but X is not proven to be untrue simply because someone may or may not be Y.

Now if someone hates women, or wants women "back in the kitchen" or tied to beds, what ever, I think it is better to examine and dismantle their argument rather then simply call them a name. It allows one to better understand the opposite ideology and build better arguments against it.

Pussy is equated with weakness, it has nothing to do with want or hate, imagine the word replaced with "flower", most people like flowers, but flowers are weak, easily crushed, to be equated with one, especially if your of the sex where strength and power is idealized, is an insult. On the other other side women will degrade each other by calling one another "bossy", or "butch", to slander another for not fitting into their assigned gender role. Human beings are not mysterious at all, humans want to conform, to fit in, and denigrate and destroy anyone that does not fit in. Human's create gender roles as one means of keeping everyone in check and determining their viability in the sexual marketplace, and to accuse one another of not fitting into their role is to either ostracize them completely or make them fit in. Would one expect any more from an animal barely evolved from apes?

"Misanthrope" is a title I accept with pride.

Wait, if it is utter to boys who are being harassed and attack by girls, how is it misogyny? When I was a child I was often harassed by a girl in my swimming class, I was told by everyone "I bet she likes you", she hit me a few times too, not enough to cause injury though.

I don't deny there is misogyny, just don't think that a good example. Raping or assaulting women for not covering up, cutting off clitorises, demanding life time servitude, sexual enslavement and no reproductive rights, are far better examples, and even then surprising Topsy-Turvy arguments can arise explaining it all as acts of female entitlement rather then oppression.

Person A: "Why do you demand women be covered up, stay indoors and have male escorts"
Person B: "To protect women of course!"
Person A: "Well why do they need that protection?"
Person B: "Well because women are holy and precious and men will rape them."
Person A: "Can't we just prosecute and castrate rapists?"
Person B: "Well sure, but that won't protect every women, this way women are safer."
Person A: "Should not a women's freedom come before her safety?"
Person B: "My god of course not, her safety is paramount, how can you hate women so???"

 

I think people simply fall into their gender roles, whatever that might be. Women still choose to be stay-home-mothers. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that choice. In fact, it's an honorable role, one that has been devalued over the years.

 

I suppose it depends on what you are looking for in a woman.

 

Oh there is nothing wrong with that choice, only it is not for everyone, not even everyone that has a working womb. If gender roles are natural, purely social or a feedback of both, is irrelevant, try to let everyone freely choose for themselves and let the chips fall where they may. The problem with this argument is it appeals to freedom over happiness, but that is a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

 

Absolutely. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with a man choosing to do the same thing. Or a woman choosing to be a CEO. Or a man choosing the same thing. And as long as societal gender roles do not force people into those roles - as long as people can still make their own choices - then no worries.

 

And that's where OUR society resides--freedom of choice for all. Women have as much equality with men where the opportunities exist. As long as a person has the capacity, their options are plentiful.

 

It seems that chasing a career has taken a leading role with women. I often think, though, that it is because of necessity. The days when a family could live on one salary appear to be gone. It may be that many women have little choice. Most are probably forced into the workforce.