From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon SJ.svg

This Social justice related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)

Can we delete the alternate meanings section?[edit]

I get that it's meant to be sarcastic, but it's very badly written. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs


Hinduism is also very misogynistic


not really sold on the definitions of misogyny and sexism, and the difference between the two. its a little to clear cut for my liking but i would probably just shrug it off rather than come up with something if it not for the section on historical misogyny which involves a pedantic argument hinging on the application of rigid definitions (thankfully not applied to the rest of the article, which is entirely made up of examples exactly of the kind used here). strictly applying a definition of 'malicious intent' in this section misses the the inherent misogyny of women being little more than cattle. the men are punished with death in the example because men have agency and are responsible in this instance with going against gods law, but women are cattle, property, and to the victor the spoils. the misogyny is inherent because their relatively better treatment in this case is dependent on the women doing as they are told. if they resisted their fate they'd be killed also. the misogyny has a form where 'good' women who conform to particular norms and behaviours, and 'bad' women who must be punished for and dissuaded from deviating from prescribed norms via abusive and coercive measures. its more than simply 'malicious intent'AMassiveGay (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

i have in fact amended the definition to something i think is more accurate than 'extreme sexism'. feel free to come up with something better, im not wedded to mine beyond i didnt like what was there before. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

hatred of trans women (e.g. Ophelia Benson's): Is it misogyny, or is it acceptable?[edit]

We need to decide whether to treat hatred of trans women as misogyny. One possibility is that we should ignore the issue, since trans women are actually men, not women, and therefore, people who hate trans women are irrelevant to this article. The other possibility is that trans women are women: Morally, they should be treated as such, and Benson is wrong. We can't correct Benson's hate, but we can write about the issue in a less hateful way than Benson would. I ask this question seriously: Does Benson hold some position of authority here? Or can we kick her to the curb and talk about trans issues with compassion?


@AMassiveGay Why isn't the fact that transmisogyny still qualifies as misogyny "not worth including" in the article? I think it is. Oxyaena Harass 10:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It isn't a fact that transmisogny still qualifies as misogny. You thought wrong. I hope this clarifies matters for you. DanG (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
You didn't actually clarify anything. Oxyaena Harass 14:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Why are you answering an obvious Ken sock anyway? GeeJayK (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
It only misogyny if you consider transwomen as women. Transphobes do not so... Besides have you looked at the actual article? See what the focus is? Where does it fit exactly? Expand it to more than religion sure, but a 1line argument of pissy pendantry is not that. And what difference does it really make if one type of bigotry and prejudice is not another specific kind of bigotry and prejudice? It's still bigotry and prejudice - that's not gonna change if it's not specifically this kindAMassiveGay (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not completely sold on it not being misogyny btw, but it is a really pissy pedantic argument and still does fit in the article in its current form, which is essentially misogyny and religion. I think I said something about that above AMassiveGay (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)