How to spot misogynists and misandrists

[wegs]

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!

The RCC has a near obsession with putting virginity on a pedestal, but only when it comes to women’s virginity. Granted, priest celibacy is expected in the vocation, but there seems to be a preoccupation with how the RCC views Mary and virginity of women. As if to suggest that the importance and relevance of a woman’s worth, rests in our sexual status. That’s just for starters, I could go on.

When it comes to sexuality in our culture, a double standard exists where men get a high five for sleeping around, but women are slut-shamed for the same behavior. Because virginity is held as a prize that men want. This is what patriarchy looks and feels like, QQ - a system that fosters male supremacy and women are just objects and property for their choosing.

 

[DaveC426913]

perhaps all misogynists are patriarchal but not all patriarchs are misogynist... might have some bearing...

Not sure how that's possible, when it comes down to it.
Patriarchy - by definition - allots different rules to men and to women. Women are, by definition, subservient, in at least some ways.

If one were not misogynistic, why would one have any rule at all that limited women based on their gender alone?

 

[DaveC426913]

When it comes to sexuality in our culture, a double standard exists where men get a high five for sleeping around, but women are slut-shamed for the same behavior. Because virginity is held as a prize that men want.

Well, some people are certainly having trouble crawling out of their caves from the last century/millennia of machismo.

Is this still an accurate portrayal of societal views*? It's definitely changing. The pill - facilitating women to be as flexible and mobile as they desire (as well as modern wisdom about pregnancy not being a disability to a fully-realized life) - has only been around for 3 generations.

*Don't get me wrong. Of course it's still plaguing society. But is it perhaps on the wane?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Not sure how that's possible, when it comes down to it.
Patriarchy - by definition - allots different rules to men and to women. Women are, by definition, subservient, in at least some ways.

If one were not misogynistic, why would one have any rule at all that limited women based on their gender alone?

power... simply power...
the love of power and the dislike or even hatred for anything that diminishes it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The RCC has a near obsession with putting virginity on a pedestal, but only when it comes to women’s virginity. Granted, priest celibacy is expected in the vocation, but there seems to be a preoccupation with how the RCC views Mary and virginity of women. As if to suggest that the importance and relevance of a woman’s worth, rests in our sexual status. That’s just for starters, I could go on.

When it comes to sexuality in our culture, a double standard exists where men get a high five for sleeping around, but women are slut-shamed for the same behavior. Because virginity is held as a prize that men want. This is what patriarchy looks and feels like, QQ - a system that fosters male supremacy and women are just objects and property for their choosing.

Can I ask you... Do you believe that only women are victims of male quests for supremacy?
perhaps consider
a military paradigm, or a civilian employment paradigm.
Where male supremacists subjugate other males or any competition regardless of gender.

 

[wegs]

Well, some people are certainly having trouble crawling out of their caves from the last century/millennia of machismo.

Is this still an accurate portrayal of societal views*? It's definitely changing. The pill - facilitating women to be as flexible and mobile as they desire (as well as modern wisdom about pregnancy not being a disability to a fully-realized life) - has only been around for 3 generations.

*Don't get me wrong. Of course it's still plaguing society. But is it perhaps on the wane?

Slightly dated, but still relevant. Read when you have time.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-truth-about-slut-shaming_b_7054162

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yes. Which is why its bad example - faulty analogy.
Man does not literally have the power of life and death over woman.

hmmm... think again.... domestic violence deaths as an example...

 

[parmalee]

Off-topic, so I'll be brief:

If man respected dog as equal, he would not leash it.

Not necessarily. For most, sure, that would be the attitude and relation; but from a posthumanist perspective, consideration of the other's perspective--to the degree that one can, of course--would factor: as most dogs, don't drive or have any interest or need to understand how cars work, their safety is paramount. (Mine are educated in these and other matters, so they don't need leashes. But I still don't think they know how cars work.) There's more of an emphasis upon liberation and constructing meaningful relations, rather than rights (thus moving well beyond the dated theorizing of the Peter Singer or Tom Regan variety), which are less meaningful to dogs (or not at all, with many other species). Likewise, children are restricted from doing certain things; the elderly (with failing vision, etc.) are sometimes restricted from, say, driving; I'm epileptic, and am excluded from certain occupations and activities. We're all deprived of personhood to varying degrees, in various circumstances. Consequently, feminism, queer studies, and, especially, disability studies intersect with animal studies/critical animal studies.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Women are, by definition, subservient, in at least some ways.

This is IMO a fundamentally flawed POV. I understand it is not necessarily a personal statement but possibly more a generalization of how society seems to be.
To me the relationship of women and men is one of equal partnership where neither is superior or inferior to the other.
The unfortunately entrenched patriarchal designation of male supremacy is premised on the desire to maintain and increase an ego driven and artificial power over others.

 

[wegs]

Off-topic, so I'll be brief:


Not necessarily. For most, sure, that would be the attitude and relation; but from a posthumanist perspective, consideration of the other's perspective--to the degree that one can, of course--would factor: as most dogs, don't drive or have any interest or need to understand how cars work, their safety is paramount. (Mine are educated in these and other matters, so they don't need leashes. But I still don't think they know how cars work.) There's more of an emphasis upon liberation and constructing meaningful relations, rather than rights (thus moving well beyond the dated theorizing of the Peter Singer or Tom Regan variety), which are less meaningful to dogs (or not at all, with many other species). Likewise, children are restricted from doing certain things; the elderly (with failing vision, etc.) are sometimes restricted from, say, driving; I'm epileptic, and am excluded from certain occupations and activities. We're all deprived of personhood to varying degrees, in various circumstances. Consequently, feminism, queer studies, and, especially, disability studies intersect with animal studies/critical animal studies.

This is a really interesting perspective.

 

[parmalee]

This is a really interesting perspective.

Animal Studies and Critical Animal Studies--the latter addressing more ethical and political concerns; the former being more philosophical and scientific--are fascinating disciplines. On one hand, by their very nature, they cannot fully satisfy certain demands for scientific rigor, being more speculative and, at times, necessitating cognitive leaps (like with Nagel's "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?," most intelligent ethologists and those who study animal cognition will acknowledge their limitations); while on the other, the responses to something like the largely unacknowledged absurdity, and downright stupidity, really, of things like the Mirror Test and Morgan's Canon are really quite pointed and astute, satisfying both those of an Anglo-Analytic bent and those more Continental inclined.

The writing is often challenging, it can be like reading Adorno and having to have a fairly extensive background in quite disparate fields. (In Adorno's case, that being music theory and Continental thought.) Some of the best stuff comes from Cary Wolfe, Colin Dayans, and Donna Haraway IMHO.

Edit: And also, especially, Derrida's The Animal That Therefore I Am <<<, though in matters of science and law, he could be... obtuse, or something. Really, a lot of his stuff from the 90's til his death.

 

[Bells]

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.

Okay..?

And how does this affect my statement that the Catholic Church's views of the Virgin Mary and Eve and how they are portrayed?

We are talking about a religious figure, that was, as per religious teachings and literature, created from the rib of Adam, to be his companion.. Not his equal. The very notion that she was created from him, from a small part of him, embraces the belief system that Eve and thus all women, are less than men..

Secondly, my comment still stands. Eve did not do as she was told by a male figure and was thus forever labeled when compared to the Virgin Mary, who did do as she was told and was forever venerated..

 

[James R]

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

This is ridiculous.

It's one thing if you started off completely naive about the topic and, as a result, honestly believed at the time that there was no doubt that misogyny and misandry have their roots in childhood trauma. But you've now had the benefit of pages and pages of education on the topic. You cannot any longer honestly pretend to be unaware that there is doubt about your thesis.

You could still validly claim that you, personally, believe your thesis, in the face of the doubts that you are aware other people have about it, but it's impossible for you to keep making the claim that "there is no doubt". At best, you can make the claim that you, personally, have no doubts, although in that case the only excuse you can give is wilful blindness.

 

[Bells]

Well, some people are certainly having trouble crawling out of their caves from the last century/millennia of machismo.

Is this still an accurate portrayal of societal views*? It's definitely changing. The pill - facilitating women to be as flexible and mobile as they desire (as well as modern wisdom about pregnancy not being a disability to a fully-realized life) - has only been around for 3 generations.

*Don't get me wrong. Of course it's still plaguing society. But is it perhaps on the wane?

Is it though?

Consider for example over the last 20 years, access to abortion in the US, for example, has become harder. Access to birth control, is also becoming harder.

It is changing, in that regard, you are correct. But it is not exactly changing for the better. Clinics that provide reproductive healthcare in the US continue to be forced into closure due to Government regulations to ensure their closure.. Pregnant women are sometimes denied treatment in Catholic managed hospitals (even public ones) during miscarriages or even ectopic pregnancies while there is still a foetal heartbeat. Access to emergency contraception for rape victims is also being curtailed.

If you want to talk patriarchy, look at the hearings in 2012 in your country that was addressing women's access to birth control..

Your current President is taking a sharpie pen to all gains that had been fought for and taking it back to those cave entrances.

 

[DaveC426913]

Consider for example over the last 20 years, access to abortion in the US, for example, has become harder. Access to birth control, is also becoming harder.

Yes, well. I can't defend anything about America...
The country that invented time travel and is going backwards in time...

If you want to talk patriarchy, look at the hearings in 2012 in your country that was addressing women's access to birth control..
Your current President is taking a sharpie pen to all gains that had been fought for and taking it back to those cave entrances.

Not me. I live in a 21st century country.

 

[Bells]

Yes, well. I can't defend anything about America...
The country that invented time travel and is going backwards in time...


Not me. I live in a 21st century country.

Where the barrier is financial.

But your comment did bring a smile to my face.

 

[wegs]

Can I ask you... Do you believe that only women are victims of male quests for supremacy?
perhaps consider
a military paradigm, or a civilian employment paradigm.
Where male supremacists subjugate other males or any competition regardless of gender.

I think it's possible for men to get hurt by patriarchy, albeit not in the same oppressive and discriminatory ways as women. Some men who feel that a patriarchal system doesn't allow them the safety to feel and express their emotions (especially towards women) for example, might stay silent in fear of appearing ''weak.'' The expectation to behave in a stoic fashion, or authoritative over women might not sit well with some men, but in a patriarchal system, they might swallow their feelings and follow the herd. (I'm guessing, but it seems possible.)

Another way to look at patriarchy is that it defines gender roles, not only for women, but also for men...in a very rigid kind of way. It's not flexible, and it's extremely self-serving to men who enjoy dominating and controlling women. (and the cultural narrative) Because of this, it creates contempt between men and women, however this is caused by patriarchal men. But, there comes a point when all the finger pointing in the world isn't going to heal us, as a society. How do we bridge the relational gap between men and women, when it comes to the pain caused by patriarchy?

 

[DaveC426913]

Where the barrier is financial.

?

But your comment did bring a smile to my face.

Well it was worth it then.

 

[Quantum Quack]

...

How do we bridge the relational gap between men and women, when it comes to the pain caused by patriarchy?

Perhaps a start would be to describe the ideal relationship between men and women and work from there?
Confucian meritocratic philosophy comes to mind...as a general foundation

 

[Bells]

?

These services are expensive, and even access to birth control is expensive and reports show that those on a low income have difficulty in accessing things like the pill, for example.

Your country is much better at the US (and a lot of other countries in the West) in regards to reproductive healthcare, but like everywhere, including Australia, can do with improvement.

Perhaps a start would be to describe the ideal relationship between men and women and work from there?
Confucian meritocratic philosophy comes to mind...as a general foundation

Do you think that a foundation based on sexist ideologies and distinct rules that governed women (gender roles were strict and women were expected to be dutiful and compliant) should be used as a general foundation?

Confucianism is very sexist and it has been shown that even with just a meritocratic system, gender norms still prevailed.