It was in the context of the broader discussion taking place...I was expanding on my agreement... I would suggest you read the thread and put it all in context...
You have a history of pulling these kinds of stunts on this site and you aren't going to get away with it here. You made a claim/statement of fact and then literally, refused to support it because you directly advised that you had no intention of even finding sources to support your claim. When you advised "there is no doubt", you literally, and I mean literally, left no room or margin for something else causing misogyny and then you went on to give fairly specific ways in which a father could sexually abuse a child to something something pedophilia to something something misogyny... You have since repeatedly attempted to change the subject and topic of this discussion. So let me stop you right here... Deliberately taking people's words out of context and doing that to change the subject, refusing to do even a little bit of research on a subject and demanding others support their arguments when you refuse to do the same, asking others to do your research for you... Stops here.. And now. If you persist in behaving this way and throwing yet another thread off topic (you have done this before in other threads), I will ban you from this thread. Simple as that. I hope that is clear enough for you to understand.
I did not.... if I did I would have supported it. Perhaps ask me how I arrived at such an opinion and I will tell you?
Can you rephrase, in English, please? For now, I'll work with what's there. OK, apparently, my previous posts are "about misogyny and patriarchal societies (being(?)) directly related" and can "not be sustained." First, show me precisely where I posit this "direct (relationship)," if you can. Next: Show me where I've used either word, "power" and "hatred." Now, show me where "misogyny" is defined simply as "hatred (for women)." --- You really need to use direct quotes. You are wholly incapable of paraphrasing or summarizing.
Yes, you did. You made the claim and then launched into your "theory"/hypothesis. I asked you to support this claim: "There is no doubt that misogyny and misandry have their roots in childhood trauma generated by a serious "betrayal of trust" placed in parent(s), adults and society generally. IMO" You then tried to weasel out of it by suggesting you did not know what a study or research was, and then tried to claim that the study of misogyny was in its infancy (*chortle*), and then advised you had no intention of doing any research to support your arguments. Your behaviour amounts to trolling. The deliberately taking people out of context, this constant demand for people to do your research for you and attempting to change the topic.. We have seen you do this before. Multiple times. So stop. There is a tonne of research on patriarchy and misogyny and how one feeds the other and allows misogyny to exist and be protected. A simplified search on misogyny and patriarchy on google scholar resulted in over 53k results. I'm not kidding QQ, you are already skating on very thin ice with your trolling in this thread.
but Bells it is not a claim it is a belief, an opinion. Apparently you have interpreted it as a claim. This much is obvious. I am sorry for your confusion. next time I will put the IMO on the front and back of any belief or opinion I wish to offer. say: "IMO. There is no doubt that misogyny and misandry have their roots in childhood trauma generated by a serious "betrayal of trust" placed in parent(s), adults and society generally. IMO" Would that be better?
Ancient Greek: Miso = Hatred Gune = Women Misogyny first complied in English around 1650 https://www.etymonline.com/word/misogyny
You can't say "In my opinion, there is no doubt..." - since there clearly is demonstrable doubt out there to be found. Correct phrasing would be "I personally have no doubt...".
Sorry, is there some question about this? misogyny - dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women We can debate the specific words such as hate, contempt and prejudice - but is there any doubt that it is some set of those words directed at women? Or are you asserting that it's too simplistic, and that the word has a broader definition?
No. Because you have a history of pulling stunts like this. Whether it is your opinion or not, the manner in which you worded it, it's still a claim. And you were wholly incorrect. Do you troll like this on purpose? Or is it simply second nature? Misogyny: Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. Misogyny manifests in numerous ways, including social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility, androcentrism, patriarchy, male privilege, belittling of women, disenfranchisement of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification.[1][2] Misogyny can be found within sacred texts of religions, mythologies, and Western philosophy[1][3] and Eastern philosophy.
QQ took Parmalee's post out of context and Parmalee is asking him to explain why he said what he said.
Wait. His definition is adequate. Your definition is contained in only the first sentence: 'hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls' The rest is example, not definition. [ EDIT ] OK, reading back over last few pages. Looks like the word Patriarchy is being wedged in, which ... adds nuance to the discussion.
No. This is not an opinion versus opinion thing. It is objectively true that there is doubt about the view you hold. Your phrasing is such that there is no doubt anywhere, for anyone, in the roots of misogyny. That is demonstrably untrue.
how so? I never presume to speak for any one other than myself unless other wise quoted/supported. How do you get "anywhere, for any one"? I stated: There is no doubt that misogyny and misandry have their roots in childhood trauma generated by a serious "betrayal of trust" placed in parent(s), adults and society generally. IMO in response to thus agreeing with her. and expanding on causation...
ahhh ok... I really need to put in the "I personally believe...." I can see how it could be easily misinterpreted. The sentence can be read in at least two ways...As worded it could be interpreted to imply that others automatically hold to the same lack of doubt. What I should have written was : There is no doubt, in my mind, that misogyny and misandry have their roots in childhood trauma generated by a serious "betrayal of trust" placed in parent(s), adults and society generally. and not bothered with the IMO at the end... Thanks Dave...
And you would still be wrong and you would be asked to support your contention. This is a science forum. If you have no doubt in your mind, then you have to be able to show why you have no doubt in your mind.. You would still have to prove it. Posting your made up theory about the ways in which a father could sexually abuse a child and trying to link paedophilia to misogyny does not cut it.. No one cares about your opinion. What we do care about is that you are able to support your argument.
QQ seems to be working with very restrictive, reductionist employments of the terminology--well, when it suits him.
