Yeah I know. We even have this garmet worn here. I was suggesting a pragmatic reason for its early adaption. But don't mind me....
How to spot misogynists and misandrists
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
Wait, what?
I was replying to your comment about imagining back 1000 years as it relates to women being raped in areas where there aren’t the same secular laws as in the West.
And, many men who reside in the Middle East, blame and shame women for being raped:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rassment-men-middle-east-muslim-a8010511.html
This article is an interesting look at women's rights in Lebanon, and how women are exposing the truth about shaming and blaming victims of rape:
https://en.qantara.de/content/women...aign-exposes-victim-blaming-attitudes-to-rape
This article discusses women's ''responsibility'' after a string of sexual assaults in northwest London:
(Taken from article): ""When there is a terrorist attack, government, police and public figures say 'we will not change our way of life, we will not change our behaviours... we will carry on as normal because we deserve a safe society'. But when women are being raped and assaulted, government, police and public figures say 'women, change your behaviours... do something different'. Why are women supposed to change their lives and their behaviours for sex offenders?"
Is this a form of victim shaming and blaming, as well? Hmm.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-45809169
Last edited:
There are no studies that rule out their beliefs and behaviour being linked to their favourite flavour of ice-cream, or the day of the week on which they were born, or the wall colour of their childhood room, or the name of their postman. Or whether they had a pet cat, or dog, as a child. Or whether they live next to a single person or a couple.
The list is endless of links that are not ruled out in studies. But if you can find one that rules them out, do post it.
The way of things here is that if you with to make a link, to come up with a hypothesis, and want that link to be taken as anything more than an unsupported assumption made by someone without the necessary background in the subject, then you need to support your hypothesis. And yes, if you had the necessary background you would surely be able to support your hypothesis with studies when asked to.
If I or others say that there is no evidence to support your link, we don’t need to support your lack of evidence with other evidence, because the lack of evidence you have provided IS the evidence that you are lacking evidence to support your hypothesis. If you claim that there is an apple on the table, and I say your claim is unsupported, then that is me saying that you have not supported your claim. If you do not (or can not) support your claim then your claim is, by definition, unsupported by you. Your lack of support is all the “evidence” of your lack of support that is needed.
So here, you have made a hypothesis. You have linked the views or behaviour of these people to childhood trauma. Are you going to support that link, or is it fair to say that it is an unsupported hypothesis on your part?
Or are you going to simply tread the “well, you can’t prove me wrong” line from the kindergarten school of debating?
Now then, assuming that you do get through the first hurdle and provide some research, it will be interesting to see how it hurdles the possible post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I.e. correlation rather than causation.
What would you do?
Bells
Staff member
He is trolling because I asked him to back up his claims earlier (after he made said claim and then did this awkward dance around very specific theories he imagined about how a child could be sexually abused by a father and somehow or other tried to link it to pedohpilia), and then he advised he had no intention of actually looking for said support for his claims..
Elliot Rodger - no child sexual abuse or childhood trauma
Chris Harper-Mercer - no child sexual abuse or childhood trauma
William Atchison - no child sexual abuse or childhood trauma
Nikolas Cruz - no child sexual abuse or childhood trauma
Alek Minassian - no child sexual abuse or childhood trauma
Scott Beierle - no child sexual abuse or childhood trauma
Noticing a pattern?
Going to stop trolling now?
You aren't even making any sense.
You made the claim. You are the one that has to support it. Do not expect others to do your legwork for you, to support the claim you made.
That's not how it works.
Imagine being a woman in Australia, followed while walking home, raped and murdered, and having society question why she was out walking by herself late at night... For example:
Jill Meagher
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and...s-lets-the-perpetrators-off-the-hook-1.550285
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...illed-jill-meagher-would-not-have-been-killed
Eurydice Dixon
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...anger-grows-over-police-response-to-comedians
Courtney Herron
https://junkee.com/courtney-herron-murder-herald-sun/207450
I could go on..
I mean, I was blamed on this very forum for not having security guards, a guard dog and slept with my phone in my hand if I really did not want to be raped in my own home..
You think the ME is bad? Look around you.
"Secular law enforcement" does not have a good track record in these matters. And hunter-gatherer societies would have comprised a fair bit of those "who live(d) in isolated desert settings 1000 years ago." Typically, they were far less misogynistic--which is, by no means, intended to suggest not at all--as they were largely anarchic and non-hierarchical.
Men and women are equally superficial, especially these days and that's the problem with society
When I was in high school I was severely abused and that's because some boys will pick up fights with me (and with each other too) and abuse me just to impress the pretty girls.
And guess what: the guys who were the most aggressive got the affection of most of the pretty girls while I got zero attention or interest from any of those girls, just because I was weak and ugly and was always bullied by these stronger and better-looking white boys.
That's what I'm telling you. Everyone is superficial and especially young boys and girls in high school.
When I was in high school I was severely abused and that's because some boys will pick up fights with me (and with each other too) and abuse me just to impress the pretty girls.
And guess what: the guys who were the most aggressive got the affection of most of the pretty girls while I got zero attention or interest from any of those girls, just because I was weak and ugly and was always bullied by these stronger and better-looking white boys.
That's what I'm telling you. Everyone is superficial and especially young boys and girls in high school.
except I did not make any claim...but merely stated an opinion, a hypothesis a theory.... a discussion point that may lead to the discovery of the how to spot a misogynist.
What claim exactly are you referring to?
Perhaps the IMO has a different meaning for you?
At least Sarkus can see the difference between an explained opinion, hypothesis and a claim...
Last edited:
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
In most contexts, misogyny is not proffered nearly enough. Misogyny is so deeply encoded within our cultures and institutions that it is virtually unavoidable--it forms the basis of our governments, our religions (esp. relevant in the US, unfortunately), and most of our cultural practices and behaviors. To posit misandry in the same context as misogyny is blatantly absurd--the commonalities extend no further than their linguistic roots.
Even with respect to HGs, with the emergence of agriculture and nomadic pastoralism, virtually all societies were patriarchal. Nonetheless, even with codified gender roles, they were still, largely, more egalitarian than modern societies.
My OP wasn't to posit misandry as having the same devestating effects for men and across society, as misogyny has been for women/society. And, the article is clearly an opinion piece on Word Press, sharing some possible outcomes or traits to spot, that could be linked to misandry. If someone is manipulative, hateful and prejeduice towards an entire gender, some of those traits could easily play out, regardless if the person is a man or woman. We could also label those same traits (as mentioned in the articles) as narcissistic or sociopathic, I think those descriptors would fit just fine, too.
I have guy friends who have been romantically involved with women who have abused them, manipulated them, and hurt them greatly. My friends didn't imagine this behavior, and they weren't ''weak'' or overly sensitive. I have friends who have been in relationships with horrible men, as well. (I've been involved with some terrible guys, too) We didn't imagine men treating us as inferior. I don't think misogyny or misandry is the catch all terminology to use in every instance, but there are likely hallmark traits that men and women can be aware of, that could fall into these categories. But, we run the risk of course of men calling all women misandrists, if they get their heart broken in relationships. Labels matter, and these labels can be polarizing if not used appropriately, for sure.
That was more of my point with the OP, although I wish I hadn't chosen opinion pieces.
I have guy friends who have been romantically involved with women who have abused them, manipulated them, and hurt them greatly. My friends didn't imagine this behavior, and they weren't ''weak'' or overly sensitive. I have friends who have been in relationships with horrible men, as well. (I've been involved with some terrible guys, too) We didn't imagine men treating us as inferior. I don't think misogyny or misandry is the catch all terminology to use in every instance, but there are likely hallmark traits that men and women can be aware of, that could fall into these categories. But, we run the risk of course of men calling all women misandrists, if they get their heart broken in relationships. Labels matter, and these labels can be polarizing if not used appropriately, for sure.
That was more of my point with the OP, although I wish I hadn't chosen opinion pieces.
Last edited:
Well I for one, did not see it any differently then what you say.
Spot on.
I hope you did watch the 30 minute video I linked to previously.
I understand that you consider patriarchy as being misogynistic in nature...
care to expand on why you feel Patriarchy is always misogynistic?
Are you suggesting that a father always hates his daughters? (dialectic)
I believe it could be argued that patriarchal societies are not founded on hatred but more on survival of the group or collective...
The love of power more so than hate...
?? Maybe you should try reading a wikipedia article on patriarchy first.
There is also a bit of wisdom I read somewhere:
"You can not hate what you do not love" - anon
"You can not hate what you do not love" - anon
QQ - It's the ''supremacy of men'' that is the problem with patriarchy. It is a system or way of thinking, that becomes pervasive across all sectors of society, leaving women to be at the mercy of men (for work, education, status, etc) Surely you can see where this would have negative consequences for women.
I have... and nearly always it refers to power not hatred
?? And that would be the -archy--so? I think you should re-read it, perhaps.
Absolutely and I believe strongly that this will have to change and indeed will change as the world evolves away from it's generally brutal and violent past.
To find solutions one must first understand the problem. Put in historical context that includes the needs of the time.
It wasn't that long ago that men were constantly at war with each other. In many ways they still are.
Patriarchal societies and social structures were necessary for the protection of the family and the collective from men who lusted for power and sexual dominance. IMO
Slavery was common place..
Last edited:
The etymology of the the word Patriarchy.
Patriarch
late 12c., from Old French patriarche "one of the Old Testament fathers" (11c.) and directly from Late Latin patriarcha (Tertullian), from Greek patriarkhes "chief or head of a family," from patria "family, clan," from pater "father" (see father (n.)) + arkhein "to rule" (see archon). Also used as an honorific title of certain bishops in the early Church, notably those of Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/patriarch?ref=etymonline_crossreference
Patriarchyhttps://www.etymonline.com/word/patriarch?ref=etymonline_crossreference
1560s, in ecclesiastical sense, from Greek patriarkhia, from patriarkhes (see patriarch). Meaning "system of society or government by fathers or elder males of the community" first recorded 1630s.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/patriarchy
-arkhonhttps://www.etymonline.com/word/patriarchy
one of the nine chief magistrates of ancient Athens, 1650s, from Greek arkhon "ruler, commander, chief, captain," noun use of present participle of arkhein "be the first," thence "to begin, begin from or with, make preparation for;" also "to rule, lead the way, govern, rule over, be leader of," a word of uncertain origin.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/archon?ref=etymonline_crossreference
https://www.etymonline.com/word/archon?ref=etymonline_crossreference
I am uncertain as to what you are actually trying to say...
Last edited: