RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3500Goal: $3500


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.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

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


Is there any third alternative to being (1) a feminist or (2) a misogynist? Landmartian (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If we're talking about the literal definitions, I suppose there is misandrist. Zero (talk - contributions) 03:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


Hinduism is also very misogynistic

On Nietzsche's misogyny[edit]

Apparently, he wrote this in Beyond Good and Evil:

"Whenever a cardinal problem is at stake, there speaks an unchangeable "this is I"; about man and woman, for example, a thinker cannot relearn but only finish learning–only discover ultimately how this is "settled in him." At times we find certain solutions of problems that inspire strong faith in us; some call them henceforth their "convictions." Later–we see them only as steps to self-knowledge, signposts to the problem we are–rather, to the great stupidity we are, to our spiritual fatum, to what is unteachable very "deep down".

After this abundant civility that I have just evidenced in relation to myself I shall perhaps be permitted more readily to state a few truths about "woman as such"–assuming that it is now known from the outset how very much these are after all only–my truths."

While I still feel that he's a misogynist I also feel that it is disingenuous to lump him next to the Nazis and fascists as a virulent hater of women, as he at least didn't advocate his views on women as an ideal for others to aspire. User:Hex4 (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

I don't agree with this edit nor its reasoning. "Sexual objectification is too subjective to be seen as a form of misogyny". This needs to be justified; as of now, it's a bald assertion. The other part removed ("Human history is largely a history of misogyny; it has only been in the last 200 years that women in any country have begun to find any measure of equality."), I don't agree with either at all. Every major civilization documented in the world history textbook I studied for AP World History Traditions and Encounters: A Global Perspective on the World has a section entitled "Patriarchal society" or something similar and you can paint a picture that world history is tainted with misogyny. Practically during the start of the neolithic period is when women start being subjugated. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 15:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Good. So please fix the specific bits that are objectively wrong and give reasons. Do you still have your textbook? Don't wipe out massive chunks of texts. Nerd (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I have it.

Because of the thorough interdependence of the sexes from the viewpoint of food production, paleolithic society probably did not encourage domination of one sex by the other – certainly not to the extent that became common later.

p.41 (dealing with early Mesopotamia, subsection called Emergence of a Stratified Patriarchal Society); p.42 subsubection called "patriarchal society". Women had subordinate legal status. Men could sell wives and children to satisfy their debt. Men dominated public life. Adulterous wives could be punished by drowning, while men could do the same without penalty.
pg. 71 (Egypt and Nubian society) subsubsection called Patriarchal society. Similar to above, though less unequal. Women enjoyed a bit more power such as being able to have property and slaves and pass wealth to their children. Men ruled households and public affairs.
pg 97 (early India) The Development of Patriarchal Society
"The Aryans built a strongly patriarchal social order on the basis of gender distinctions". Even during migrations to there, men dominated public space. Formal education for women is unheard of. Descent is important through the male line. According to Lawbook of Manu, women were to be treated with respect, but they should remain subordinate and obedient to men, even to their sons. Practice of sati is encouraged where a widow would voluntarily join her husband if her husband died, though not widespread.
pg. 121 (Early Chinese society). Family and Patriarchy. Elderly males ruled the household. Male authority intensified over time, particularly over Shang and Zhou dynasties. Matrilineal line, though, but it was lost over time. Male members who led notable lives were venerated. After Shang Dynasty, queens stopped having temples devoted to them, and would be remembered for their husbands' works.
There's a bit more. I didn't see sections for Americas, Oceana, or Persia, but for Persia, perhaps the latter is established. Anyhow, that's a beginner. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 16:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, I was about to go into "Underlying philosophical issues that pertain to misogyny", but I lost my comment. Was going to say it went off in a tangent for the first paragraph (also I would argue it doesn't matter what the intent of the groper is as groping is mostly a misogynistic action, defining misogyny including disrespecting women; this is similar to arguing that parents who mistreat their kids don't intend to, they just don't have strategies, but we don't debate if the actions are abusive or not), second paragraph isn't very well-thought out, and the last paragraph isn't really a solid argument against misogyny as you can argue that women are treated like property (sexual objectification; I don't think that "virgin" descriptor is an accident, and women are constantly treated like vessels or complimentary dishes in the Bible; you can kind of make similar arguments when you're arguing the taboo of rape versus the not-as-much-taboo of murder). --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 16:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Impressive! Makes me miss the good old days in high school. Looked it up on Amazon. Very popular AP textbook. Too bad they won't let me see the table of contents. Yeah, I hate the calling people "virgins" as if they are some sort of product and their virginity is a sign of newness. The Bible is not unique in that. Gross!
Again, please tackle the troublesome parts of the article one by one. Don't wipe things out all at once. Targeted precision strikes! Nerd (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
You're giving entirely too much credit to the babbling, non-helpful material added in conjunction with the crazy, insane material. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
(psst, the person who made the changes is a functionally nutso MRA type. The incoherence is not accidental. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC))

That Hinduism part made me raise an eyebrow. Indian society is historically one of the most sexist places a woman can grow up in. I don't find the "Oh, but there's a lot of goddesses" argument all that convincing either. Better sources needed, sis. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 21:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


This part is also blather to me. Also, relevant information was scrubbed in favor of viewpoints by Stephen Buckle. Who is Stephen Buckle? Why is his views so prominently displayed here? The reference isn't even properly created; we just get an empty <ref name=Buckle/> that's cited three times in the article. A search engine doesn't tell me a lot. He doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Is it this guy? Are his arguments in here? I hate lazy sourcing. Anyhow, I'm not convinced by his arguments either. "Stephen views that the inequities found in the past such as paternalism were not caused by misogyny. Rather paternalism and ideas currently viewed as misogynistic were both effects of the underlying cause of group survival and, as soon as the conditions for group survival changed due to things like technological advancement". I'm no expert on the subject, but I find that view not... something I'd commonly read about in academia. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

It turns out that maybe all those claims are from this piece called The Myth of Misogyny. Is anyone willing to dive into it? It begins with "Women’s historically unequal social status is systematically misunderstood by feminist theory."
This seems like the main point of the article.

Moreover, attitudes towards women are the effect, not the cause, of women’s inferior situation, and changed circumstances will result in that situation, and those attitudes, steadily undergoing change.

And some other passages.

There are, of course, other conceptions of feminism in the public sphere: that it is all about women’s right to choose their mode of life, about rejecting the stereotyping of women, and so on. These conceptions are, however, all parasitic on feminist social theory, because all rely on the assumption that what is being affirmed has previously been denied to women because of oppressive male power.

Historic inequalities between the sexes are an observable fact. But it does not follow from this that women have been denied equality by men—that men have prevented them from enjoying equality. Misogyny, where it exists, is the effect, not the cause, of women’s lesser social position.

The fact is that social attitudes are rarely determinants of social structures; in the main, they are established by those social structures. Human beings come into a world already formed, and—as the convictions of children sufficiently illustrate—they very quickly come to the view that the way things are is the way things must be. Resistance to change is the consequence. If there are interests at stake—such as the desire to preserve a superior social position—then the resistance will be reinforced by other factors. But the point is that such resistance will exist wherever there is a stable social order; and the temptation, for the reformer, is then to misread this fact as if it is evidence of some deeper, even bedrock, form of opposition to the reformers themselves. In short, much of what is taken for misogyny is no such thing: nothing more than unthinking habit. The fact is, conservative resistance to change has been misread by feminists as misogynist opposition to women themselves.

Social structures are not explained by reference to attitudes—the attitudes themselves are products of those structures and so do not explain them. The point is not that all attitudes are products of social structures—as if there was no such thing as independent thought. It is, rather, that attitudes entrenched in a society are much more likely the result of that society’s circumstances and history than of the independent thought of individuals. The same is true where societies undergo dramatic changes in their ruling assumptions (as our own society has over the past sixty years). The moral is that social explanations must begin with the analysis of social circumstances, not with attitudes. The deployment of misogyny as an explanatory notion ignores this moral.

No better illustration of this is provided by the news that the Macquarie Dictionary will revise its entry for misogyny in order to extend the meaning well beyond hostility to women to include entrenched prejudice; in other words, to conflate the meanings of sexism and misogyny. Since sexism can be defined as the conservative idea that women’s traditional roles capture their essential nature, the Macquarie Dictionary’s willingness to conflate the two meanings illustrates precisely the feminists’ misreading of sexism as if it were misogyny. That misreading directly reflects their conviction that all resistance must be, at bottom, misogynist, since feminist social theory is trapped in the mindset that women’s social situation is due to male prejudices (sexism) grounded in an underlying hostility to women (misogyny). Give up that theory, however, and there is no longer any temptation to run sexism and misogyny together as if they are different aspects of the same thing. In fact they are not. So in this article, misogyny is used in its established meaning of hostility towards women.

I believe there's a positive feedback loop when it comes to misogyny. This person is denying the other side of it. This doesn't account for why women are denied education or inheriting property and having their property split. The valuing of the "warrior" to ensure "survival" doesn't translate to restricted education and public presence for women.

These conclusions themselves oppose what have become social commonplaces, so, in the nature of the case, we should expect them to encounter resistance. So it may help to consider another, very instructive, case of social inferiority. This is the social standing of children. It is obvious—not least to themselves—that children’s standing is low. Their preferences are routinely overridden by parents and other adults. The explanation is not, however, adults’ hostility to children. The reverse is true: parents love their children, and devote enormous resources to their protection and development. So their low status is not due to hostile attitudes. What does explain their standing? Much the most plausible view is that it is explained by their dependence on adults. Adults, because they are able to manage their own affairs, gain respect and thus standing vis-à-vis others. This is one main source of social status, and children lack it.

The example is important because it has significant implications for explaining the status of women. Of course, women are not children, but in this respect they are—if to varying degrees in different physical and social circumstances, and in different times and places—in much the same situation as children.[5] Women’s lot is to be less independent than men, partly because of pregnancy and nursing, which greatly restrict their ability to fend for themselves, and also because they both feel and indeed are more vulnerable than men to the threat posed (typically) by male outsiders.[6] So women, like children, are likely to find themselves dependent on men for their well-being. As a result, their status—or, more accurately, their average status, since status is never simply based on gender identity—tends to be less than men’s. It is this dependence on men that is the main reason for women’s typically lower social status. The degree of this dependence varies according to social circumstances, so women’s status varies across different societies and different times and places. Thus the modern Western woman’s greater independence—because of such things as effective contraception, a service and information economy that has need of her abilities, the motor car (a mobile security chamber), the mobile phone, CCTV—goes hand-in-hand with the rise in her status.

The person compares children's inferior social standing to women's inferior social standing. He does say "of course, women are not children", but he then says, "it's the same situation", so he doesn't really address the major differences. He seems to think pregnancy and nursing are the main causes that women are not independent and can't seek status but there's really no talk about societal expectation. It doesn't mention society exacerbating the problem by restricting education from women and thus increases dependence, as well as imposing other restrictions on them like preventing them from being priests or seeking public office.

The second form of dependence—for physical security against the threat posed by (male) outsiders—is less well understood, but is of no lesser significance. That significance can be brought out clearly by considering ancient society.

Most of human history has been an experience of living in small communities in the vicinity of other communities, against which the principal form of protection has been the strength and courage of its warriors. Thus the warrior became valued as the highest human type, so much so that his qualities defined the nature of virtue itself. Thus, in The Iliad, Achilles is “the best of men”, even “god-like”, for the very simple reason that he is the best fighter; and the weaselly Thersites is the worst because he is weak and cowardly.[7] Within such a value system, it is inevitable that women be judged to be, in general, inferior to men. But they are so not because they are women, but because women are (typically) not much good as fighters: the same estimation will apply to men who, like Thersites, fail the fighting test. So, in every society where physical security is uncertain, and achieved only through the strength and courage of the warriors, the warriors will constitute a privileged group, and their qualities will, for that society, define human worth. In such societies, the status of women will in general be lower than that of men—but for reasons that have nothing to do with misogyny, and everything to do with the conditions for group survival.

"women are (typically) not much good as fighters". Wow. Are women just untrainable? What a sweeping generalization. And it's completely ignorant of ancient history. See concluding paragraph by me.

How is this possible? According to Plato, reason is the “ruling element”, and Aristotle here concedes that women possess it. So why are they “without authority”? The answer is different from the case of the “natural slave”, who lacks the “ruling element” because lacking in the deliberative faculty.[16] The woman’s problem, in contrast, stems from the spirited part of the soul. Plato holds that it must assist the rational part for rule to be effective, and Aristotle seems to concur. So the woman is “without authority” because she is deficient, not in rationality, but in this spirited capacity. Thus Aristotle connects women’s unfitness to rule to their deficiencies in courage and boldness—virtues of the spirited part of the soul. But this also means that, where rule does not require boldness—such as in the household (and, we might add, in successful urban societies where boldness is of lesser significance)—there women are capable of ruling.

In these famous works, then, we see the tensions inherent in the steady but incomplete abandonment of the values of the heroic world. A more complex social reality underpins the departure from the heroic norm, but the continuing relevance of the values of the past is shown in the attempt to combine spirited self-assertion and rational inquiry in a new and harmonious structure for the human soul. Moreover, the very sense of the present world as in transition is reflected in Plato’s dream of utopian possibilities: Plato the radical reformer pushes the boundaries, in contrast to Aristotle’s soberly descriptive social science. Nevertheless, the overall picture is clear: status in this world depends on a mix of the new rational virtues and the old spirited virtues of the warrior. In this more complex world, women enjoy a higher status; but, especially because of the influence of the older values, they still fall short of social equality. However, this lesser status is not because they are women, but because of the values necessary for the effective functioning of the kind of society it is. In all societies, security against external threats is a pressing concern; but women’s status improves as the means for that security shifts from the virtues of the warrior to that of the bureaucrat and social planner—roughly speaking, from brawn to brains. Appeals to misogyny are powerless to explain such shifts. Thus, with respect to the ancient world, misogyny has next to no explanatory value.

"With respect to the ancient world". His argument lies in Greek society, yet ancient world is much more than that. In China, for instance, as it developed, society lost the importance of matrilineal lineage in favor of patrilineal and queens became devalued and remembered only for their husbands. This entirely contradicts the narrative of "as society develops, women accure more rights". I also recall Middle East societies initially giving women more rights, but they also eventually lost them. You can't talk about just Greece and leave out the rest of the world. There is also women in Spartan society that enjoyed more rights than their Athenian counterparts, but I guess from a simplistic view, it's because women are encouraged to participate in promoting warrior culture?? I don't know.

This is a crucial insight. For the feminist social theorist, patriarchy is an invisible, but essentially hostile, and, no less essentially, male power: a deep and insidious form of hostile maleness that guarantees the sexism and misogyny that keep women in thrall. Belief in oppressive patriarchy is thus belief in an invisible form of evil that is a permanent threat to women’s prospects. The feminist’s task, then, is constantly to be on the alert against outbreaks of this hidden hostile force. This is why criticisms of feminist theory tend to provoke furious hostility rather than a considered response. After all, what can be more evil than insidiously to challenge the undeniable reality of evil? The feminist idea of patriarchy thus turns out to be rather like belief in the Devil. No wonder, then, that feminism so often seems more like fundamentalist religion than a social theory!


Where does this leave feminism? In one important respect, it leaves it exactly where it already is. That is, the argument offered here in no way implies the rejection of the feminist goal of women’s equal participation in the workforce, and therefore of an overall average equality of status. In fact, the argument helps to show why modern feminism arose when it did, and why its central aims were and are, broadly speaking, a rational response to our contemporary social circumstances. In short, it shows that modern feminism has a rational core. At the same time, however, it also shows that this core has been wrapped in a bundle of explanatory fictions, themselves supported by nothing more than rhetorical heat. The moral is plain: the feminists need to get over their predilection for shallow rhetoric, and their self-deluding sense of themselves as heroically overcoming malign male forces. Misogyny and oppressive patriarchy are explanatory fictions that derive from nothing more than a failure to understand the underlying causes of social structures. They also do real harm, by implicitly denying that men no less than women want to enjoy constructive mutual relations. It is time to consign them to the dustbin of history.

Okay, his entire argument is that "misogyny is an effect, not a cause" and I'm not convinced at all. Merely quoting David Hume's statement on cautiousness doesn't bolster your claims. It also goes the other way, too. You have to provide better evidence why it's not a cause rather than saying otherwise and repeating it. The only "evidence" is that societies are survival-based and women are devalued because they aren't tough enough (though warrior qualities aren't universally and infinitely valued I guess and they guided society treating women). This is all while overgeneralizing the "ancient world" with Greece being the only primary example as well as the grossly simplistic "warrior values" narrative, which doesn't strike me as convincing because not all societies emphasize on these values and to the same degree. There is generalizing that "women don't make for good warriors" which is just wrong. I think with proper training, women can be potent warriors tooWikipedia, but women were denied it because warriors is a status symbol too. I still think attitudes AND power differences go hand in hand, as I said earlier, a positive feedback loop.

--It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Let me check it out tomorrow, but just from the title and the intro it doesn't sound good. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
The English isn't bad, though the read is lengthy. I just don't really get a "ehhh this guy knows what he's talking about" vibes compared to times where I have changed my mind on things (like arguments that our schools isn't failing us). --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 04:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario "The fact is that social attitudes are rarely determinants of social structures; in the main, they are established by those social structures" Wait what? Does this guy not understand basic logic? I want to do a full background check on his credentials because wow that is wrong. While Social attitudes are indeed product of social structures, they are also what cause those structures to change over time and evolve in their viewpoints. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)