How to spot misogynists and misandrists

wegs said:
The history of the Roman Catholic Church would be a good example in my opinion, of a patriarchal system that breeds contempt and marginalization of women.
Click to expand...
and yet the Virgin Mary is worshiped strongly....as is the "birth of Jesus"
in fact pivotal to the Christian faith.

Humans are so full of contradictions...sigh!
 
parmalee said:
QQ seems to be working with very restrictive, reductionist employments of the terminology--well, when it suits him.
Click to expand...

which is one of the reasons I posted:
Quantum Quack said:
I agree...
People throw the word Misogyny around a bit too much and it looses focus.
Strong sexual attraction is not necessarily a symptom of hatred.
IMO In the context of this thread it refers to extreme hatred towards women. This hatred is claimed to be because of sexual rejection by women. By men who feel they are somehow irrationally entitled to sexual acceptance.IMO
Click to expand...
 
Bells said:
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.
Click to expand...
Within this context, the baseless speculation--even when prefaced with something like, "in my personal opinion..."--essentially functions in the same manner as Trump's constant refrain: "Many people have told me..." Through insidious phrasing, he is essentially positing something as being based in fact, while passing the buck for the responsibility for qualification.
 
parmalee said:
Within this context, the baseless speculation--even when prefaced with something like, "in my personal opinion..."--essentially functions in the same manner as Trump's constant refrain: "Many people have told me..." Through insidious phrasing, he is essentially positing something as being based in fact, while passing the buck for the responsibility for qualification.
Click to expand...
oh it is far from baseless speculation...
Personal experience , countless victim interviews, 50 years of searching for answers is far from baseless...
 
DaveC426913 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.
Click to expand...
It isn't wedged in.

The reason misogyny is so entrenched and flourished so well in society is because society has historically been a patriarchy, where women were considered less then men. The male dominated patriarchal system has expectations of how women have to behave, from how we dress, talk, where we work, if we work, how we behave, what we do with our bodies, our reproductive choices (we have to fight to keep them), our fundamental human rights..

These comments betray a confusion about what misogyny is. As I argued back in 2015, misogyny is not simply hatred of women. In fact, you can hate women without being a misogynist. You can even hate all women without earning the title. Imagine a society in which there are only ten women. Antonio, an ill-fated guy, is continually subjected to ridicule and bullying by the ten women. Quite understandably, Antonio soon comes to hate the ten women. But the ten women are all the women there are. So, Antonio hates all women. But he is not thereby a misogynist.

Misogyny is hate or contempt for women who don’t act in accordance with the misogynists’ patriarchal beliefs about how women should think and behave.

Misogyny of this kind does not target women who conform to the patriarchal principles misogynists abide by. This is why misogynists, when confronted, will say things like, “I don’t hate women. I love my mom and my sister. They do everything for me.” When they say this, they are speaking the truth. They don’t hate women who conform to the patriarchal dogmas they stand by. But the “I don’t hate all women” defense misfires, because misogynists need not, and usually don’t, hate all women.

Misogynists don’t hate the women who live up to their ideal of how women should be. They don’t hate women who believe or behave like they are inferior to men in ingenuity, intelligence, and integrity or who live to serve men, because this class of women occupies the social role they were destined to occupy, in the eyes of the misogynist.

Misogynistic hatred is reserved for women with power and status, women who stand up for themselves and make their own decisions, or who object to the patriarchy.​


Quantum Quack said:
and yet the Virgin Mary is worshiped strongly....as is the "birth of Jesus"
in fact pivotal to the Christian faith.

Humans are so full of contradictions...sigh!
Click to expand...
Really?

You cannot see how the ideal of the virgin birth, the pure girl (who was married off to a man in his 40's mind you!) and the veneration of this "Virgin Mary" as being perfection in contrast to say, Eve, who did not do as she was told by a male figure and allowed herself to be tempted by the apple, is in and of itself a perfect example of misogyny within a strictly patriarchal religious order?

Really?

Quantum Quack said:
oh it is far from baseless speculation...
Personal experience , countless victim interviews, 50 years of searching for answers is far from baseless...
Click to expand...
In your 50 years of searching for answers, you didn't think to read a book or say, in the last 10 years, google?

Because what you are demanding answers about and for, is widely known and understood. The rest of us understand this. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the subject at hand before posting about said subject at hand.

parmalee said:
Within this context, the baseless speculation--even when prefaced with something like, "in my personal opinion..."--essentially functions in the same manner as Trump's constant refrain: "Many people have told me..." Through insidious phrasing, he is essentially positing something as being based in fact, while passing the buck for the responsibility for qualification.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

It also ensures that he will demand others prove him wrong, which means he continues to rely on his "opinion" and demand that others provide proof. It's trolling. Pure and simple.
 
Bells said:
And you would still be wrong and you would be asked to support your contention.
Click to expand...
He can't be wrong about what he personally believes.
The statement "I personally believe..." is, for all intents and purposes, true.

He could be wrong about making an argument that is predicated on that belief...
 
Bells said:
You cannot see how the ideal of the virgin birth, the pure girl (who was married off to a man in his 40's mind you!) and the veneration of this "Virgin Mary" as being perfection in contrast to say, Eve, who did not do as she was told by a male figure and allowed herself to be tempted by the apple, is in and of itself a perfect example of misogyny within a strictly patriarchal religious order?
Click to expand...
Interesting POV.
Are you saying that the Church loves what it hates?
 
Bells said:
Eve, who did not do as she was told by a male figure and allowed herself to be tempted by the apple...
Click to expand...
Gonna need a citation for that.
I could be wrong, but it is my learning that Adam did not tell her - God told them both.


Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?
The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 2:4-3:24&version=NIV

OK, that's a bit murky. It seems God told Adam -and Adam told Eve what God said.

But Adam was telling the truth. She did not "do as she was told by a male figure"; she was given the word of God.
 
Last edited:
Example: power vs hate
"I have power over my pet Dog does that mean I hate it?"
btw I don't have a pet dog...it is only an example...
 
DaveC426913 said:
Gonna need a citation for that.
I could be wrong, but it is my learning that Adam did not tell her - God told them both.


Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?
The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 2:4-3:24&version=NIV

OK, that's a bit murky. It seems God told Adam -and Adam told Eve what God said.

But Adam was telling the truth. She did not "do as she was told by a male figure"; she was given the word of God.
Click to expand...
Was it written in the book of Genesis that God hated Adam and Eve or just Eve?
 
Quantum Quack said:
did God hate Adam and Eve?
Click to expand...
I think the problem is that your examples don't address the relationship between two ostensibly equitable entities.
God versus Adam and Eve is one entity literally having the power of life and death over the other.
Man versus dog is about owner and pet.

If man respected dog as equal, he would not leash it.
If God respected humans as equals, he would not give them rules and enact punishment.
If man respected woman as equal he would have no power over her.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Gonna need a citation for that.
I could be wrong, but it is my learning that Adam did not tell her - God told them both.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
Click to expand...
QQ did not post that. I did.

And God, as per Catholics religions, is designated as male.. He has no sex, but 'he is God' - God is the father. Stories of Jesus in the Bible - Jesus views God as his father..

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) #239 states, in reference to the Father: "God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God."[3][4] The CCC discusses the traditional imagery and language of God as Father.[4] It notes, however, that God is not limited to this role alone—maternal imagery are also used in the Bible.[4] It also notes that human fatherhood only imperfectly reflects God's archetypal fatherhood.[4] God is referred to as masculine in Catholic teaching and practice.[12]

Though Church teaching, in line with its Doctors, holds that God has no literal sex because he has no body (a prerequisite of sex),[13][14] classical and scriptural understanding states that God should be referred to (in most contexts) as masculine by analogy. It justifies this by pointing to God's relationship with the world as begetter of the world and revelation.[15]​

Hence why I said "a male figure"...
 
DaveC426913 said:
I think the problem is that your examples don't address the relationship between two ostensibly equitable entities.
God versus Adam and Eve is one entity literally having the power of life and death over the other.
Man versus dog is about owner and pet.
Click to expand...
who literally has the power of life over death over the other (man vs dog)
 
Bells said:
And God, as per Catholics religions, is designated as male.. He has no sex, but 'he is God' - God is the father. Stories of Jesus in the Bible - Jesus views God as his father..
... as masculine by analogy. It justifies this by pointing to God's relationship with the world as begetter of the world and revelation.[15]​

Hence why I said "a male figure"...
Click to expand...
OK, that's kind of a different argument.
Regardless of what gender he might be assigned - as a God he did (by account) literally create her.
Eve is not his equal; she never will be.

And - pointedly - neither is Adam.

If God treats them both the same, with the same rule, then he's not targeting Eve.
 
Bells said:
Misogyny is hate or contempt for women who don’t act in accordance with the misogynists’ patriarchal beliefs about how women should think and behave.
Click to expand...
perhaps the contention that all misogynists are patriarchal but not all patriarchs are misogynist... might have some bearing...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top