Talk:Misogyny/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 26 October 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

RA

Doesn't everybody just LOVE my useless redirects? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:54, 16 February 2008 (EST)

How rare is misogyny?

"There are very few actual misogynists"

I created an account just to contest this. Unsupported statement.

Some evidence that misogyny is not all that uncommon: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/a-war-on-women

(The above SPLC article focuses only on North American groups and individuals.)

In addition, the definition of "misogyny" may be a bit more nuanced than simply "men who consciously hate women, or "men who support an explicit ideology of male supremacy." Misogynistic attitudes can take the form of unconscious biases.Stacy (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you're taking this article a bit too seriously. I'm sure that the vast majority of RW contributors do not believe that misogyny is rare - WfG certainly doesn't. However, I can see how, from this badly written piece of snark, you would be led to think we do. Bad Faith (talk) 09:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is that not all misogyny is intentional. To me there is no such thing as blind sexism, it is all crystal clear.--106.69.139.131 (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is all kinds of mess

I removed the reference to Mohammad, because it's simply bashing. No one doubts the advancements Mo gave to women and directly wrote into the Quran. He required that women be educated, both in the qu'ran and in general; he required that women get 3/5 inheratance of sons - not to bash them, but because prior to that, they got NONE; he required that the maximum you could be a wife was four times - in a society where it had been common to kill a wife. He took literally 50 women as "wifes" because their husbands had been killed in the wars, and that was the only way to support them. I get that in today's society this is not "good enough", but it was serious progress for the time.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 17:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, there is no justification for calling Mo a misogynist. The religion is, and has become even more so over time. (so is xinaity and judaism, of course). But the term simply does not apply to the individual who's wives ran much of his church, who's first wife was a financinal leader of his people; who changed laws for the better for all women. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That whole "notable misogynists" list is pretty arbitrary. Fact is, society has been misogynistic to a greater or lesser extent since forever, so holding up a few random historical examples of what certain people said about women (which often reflected the dominant views at the time) doesn't really make a hill of beans. A list of notable misogynists in modern times would be a lot more meaningful. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. though the Nietzsche quote freaks me out. ;-)Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This is, in a word, bunk — the same kind of reasoning that Thomas Paine denounced in Common Sense, viz., that because the rights of Englishmen were a fair sight better than Continental absolutism, one could not breathe a word against the foibles of the English system. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Alternative meanings

This was talked about before, but I'd like to revisit it. I don't really even understand the "alternative meanings" nonsense. I get that some radical feminists say all of society is misogynist to some extent, but is that really an alternative meaning? or just an extension of the basic ideas to the fact that society still harms women a bit?Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Christ but that section was terrible PC-bashing shite. I don't think I'd read it properly before but thankfully it's now been zapped. Anyhoo, it may still be worth mentioning in the article the fact that this word is differently interpreted by different groups. MRA types tend to stick to a strictly literal interpretation of it as "outright hatred of all women" which really misses the point & leads to the kind of blinkered "I love my wife & my mother so how can I be a misogynist?" attitude. Hence things like the recent Thunderfoot vlog (see WIGO:clogs) & the original author of this section saying that misogyny is rare rather than a real social problem. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, what an appalling travesty for us to point out that some people abuse the term, for profit or just because they need a term that sounds scarier than "male chauvinism" to describe that phenomenon. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There is an appreciable difference between "male chauvinism" and misogyny -- rape culture, systematic violence against women as such, legal and social structures predicated on keeping women from participating fully as members of society are different in both kind and degree to garden-variety discrimination. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 06:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so they need a scarier term to describe "the Patriarchy" as well. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Who is "they?" We needed a scarier term to describe "genocide" when we realized that its systematic nature made it something different from mass murder. In a similar vein, we need something that lets us talk about phenomena like systematic rape/violence/denial of full human rights that are somewhat akin to, but at the same time distinct from my father's jokes about women's alleged driving skills or the fact that my wife gets looked at funny because she doesn't shave under her arms. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 14:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe so; however, the correct meaning of "misogyny" does not cover those practices.

When you say "systematic rape," are you talking about things like the war-rape in Bosnia, or Susan Brownmiller's conspiracy theory of rape as a class-wide terrorist act? ListenerX^TalkerX 05:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with Brownmiller. I'm talking about things like Bosnia or Congo, or simply the fact that 15-20% of American women experience rape in their lifetimes, and that rape and the sexual degradation of women is solidly embedded in most cultures. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 13:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

In Bosnia, as I understand it, the motivator was ethnic hatred, not misogyny. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is of course why men were raped as often as women in that conflict, right? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As the motivation behind the war-rape policy is a matter of public record, such statistics are irrelevant. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"The official reason must be the only reason" is a pretty shallow argument. If the mass rapes weren't misogynistic, then why was it that effectively only women that were raped? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't deny that ethnic hatred was a key factor in motivating mass rape. It was ethnic hatred that motivated armies to use rape as a weapon against the enemy — but it was misogyny that restricted its use to almost solely against women. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The policy was aiming to get the women pregnant, in aid of ethnic cleansing. Consequently very little rape occurred within the ethnic groups, although that opportunity existed. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There goes my "Right, they selected victims using a dartboard. It's coincidence..." quip. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I fail to see how a policy meant to inflict pain, shame and humiliation on women while taking advantage of their reproductive capabilities in order to advance a strategic goal is not misogynystic, if only because it reduces human beings to one element of their physical capabilities. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 14:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Because they were being targeted as members of their ethnic group, not as members of their gender. The necessary hatred or contempt for women as such did not figure into the policy.

...because it reduces human beings to one element of their physical capabilities. If the policy had actually considered nothing except the victims' reproductive systems, would not their ethnicity also have been ignored? ListenerX^TalkerX 03:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You're perfectly exactly wrong. Rape as a weapon of war/genocide/ethnic cleansing targets women as women--women belonging to a particular group, but women nonetheless. If it was just a matter of doing something horrible to them as Bosniaks, etc, then I could understand killing them/maiming them/expelling them/etc. By doing something that you can only due to women as women - penetrative genital sex with the intent, or at least the acknowledged possibility of impregnating them in order to to make some sort of ethnic statement, not to mention the shame/humiliation/social stigma attached to the rape of women--these campaigns cross the line from ethnic-based crime to gender-based crime, and thus, misogyny. I am unaware of any organized and systematic attempt to use sexual violence against men as men as part of an ethnic cleansing/genocidal campaign. There have been many against women as women. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way: You want to argue that a coordinated and systematic campaign of mass rape of women is somehow not misogynystic? Okay, yeah, sure, whatever. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If it was just a matter of doing something horrible to them as Bosniaks, etc, then I could understand killing them/maiming them/expelling them/etc... But you could not understand disrupting their community's "ethnic purity," as was the intent of the policy? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I could, and I do. But targeting women as women as the means by which to do that introduces the element of misogyny into the crime. But if you want to believe that mass rape is not a misogynistic act, you go right on believing that. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As I am basing my position on facts, while you are basing yours largely on an ideological notion that hatred or contempt for women as such is a necessary motivator for mass rape, I am going to stick with the facts. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Who bears the brunt of casualties in war? Men or women? (It's not a rhetorical question; I really want to know. Obviously civilian casualties tend to exceed combatant casualties, but I wonder what the final numbers are.) If one gender can be found to suffer more from war, does that make the waging of the war misogynistic or misandrist?

Is the conscripting of solely men, rather than both men and women in equal numbers, a policy motivated by a belief that men are inferior and therefore should be sent to the front lines as cannon fodder? Walter Block hypothesized that there was some truth to that idea, since women are a society's reproductive bottleneck; it is their fertility rate that determines how fast a population grows (and therefore recovers from war). Each fertile woman's womb contributes to how many babies a country can produce; comparatively few men are needed to impregnate all those women, so therefore the men are more extraneous.

It could also be that men make superior combatants, and therefore it's their superiority that means they should be sent to the front lines to be destroyed. Thus, there are some perks to being inferior (much as disabled men are also kept safe by being exempted from the draft). Or maybe it's more efficient to operate a military that is male-only or female-only, but men were arbitarily chosen to comprise it (why?) Or maybe men just generally tend to have more of an interest in being soldiers (is it internalized sexism that makes men want to put themselves in harm's way?)

I don't think that mass rape is necessarily motivated by misogyny. It could simply be motivated by heterosexuality and opportunism on the part of the mostly male soldiers. If the soldiers were gay, and homosexual behavior were deemed acceptable, maybe they'd be raping men. Or maybe, if you're trying to change the genetic makeup of a society, or punish a people by inducing unwanted pregnancies, raping women is simply more effective than raping men. Maybe raping people's wives and daughters has a particularly demoralizing effect on the men of a culture, and those men are the true (albeit indirect) targets of the policies of mass rape.

I was looking at Judges 21:11-12: "And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan." What is that an example of? Misandry, because the men were killed? Misogyny, because the women were raped? Or is it simply that the men were considered useless to heterosexual conquerors (or conquerors living in a culture that only tolerated heterosexuality), and therefore could be destroyed; while women were useful spoils of war? Had the men been sexually useful, maybe they would've been spared. Landmartian (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Abrahamic religion section.

Look, I know we all can't wait to pile on religion in an undifferentiated fashion and that misogyny gives everyone a chance to do so, but it seems that right now that most of that section is not about misogyny, but about how the relationship between religion and misogyny is a complicated and contingent one. While that's the truth and an idea that we should be developing, given that this is an article on misogyny, this is not really the place for that sort of analysis. It belongs in an article specifically about religion and women. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 14:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is religious misogyny an inappropriate topic for an article about misogyny? ListenerX^TalkerX 06:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't, as much as I'm saying that an article about misogyny should focus on the hatred of women, not on things that aren't the hatred of women. A section that clearly and concisely lays out instances of religious misogyny would be important. A section that goes deeply into the complicated, shifting, contingent issue of the relationship between religion and gender is worthy of its own article. An article about misogyny shouldn't really be talking about how Muhammad (PBUH) worked to liberate women (as this article has, recently), 'cause that's not really about misogyny. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 13:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

An article about misogyny shouldn't really be talking about... I am inclined to agree; but as some people will make note of how Muhammad (HCKMA) wrote an inferior status for women into the Islamic scriptures, it might be better to have a balanced picture of the man, so as to avoid slipping into a "Mahound"-style portrayal of him. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It's one of the reasons this is a hard topic to discuss. We know what mysogny is today. But if in 100 years, it's decided that anyone using alcohol at all, to "hit on" a women, is misogyny (let's say our society goes matriarchal) would we call ToP a misogynist for having some drinks with his wife at a concert? To say something is misogynist you have to look at context. You have to say "what were the standards of the day, and how did so and so, or such and such fit into those standards". When you paint xianity, judaism, and islam (along with virtually all other realigions) as patriachial (a better word, then misognist, as LisX pointed out when he changed it), you bring in misogyny. But, when within one group, a smaller group is trying to change something, even though they haven't gotten to today's standards, you also have to address that. So if all of this is too much for this article, then maybe we want to just rethink the whole article. Otherwise, every single male prior to 200 years ago is by some arbitrary definition (like Lis X's 9 year old, something many many many people and cultures did) "misogynist" and the word loses every bit of meaning.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 15:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

To say something is misogynist you have to look at context. I disagree. To be misogynistic, an action or policy must be motivated by a hatred for women or a belief that they are inferior to men.

But if in 100 years, it's decided that anyone using alcohol at all, to "hit on" a women, is misogyny... So in the 22nd century, we can look forward to a proclamation such as: By decree of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Matriarchy, the lips that touch liquor shall never touch ours? ListenerX^TalkerX 03:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem I have with this viewpoint is the idea that "the standards of the day" are somehow concrete, constant, consistent and uncontested. Like I said before, the standard of the day in Jamaica in 1800 was to own slaves. But there was an active abolitionism movement at the time, and hey, the slaves might have had an opinion on the question too: why does "the standard" have to be defined by the actions of the powerful people? I have no problem judging the actions of slave-owners from the perspective of the standards of anti-slavery activists or the slaves themselves. Also as to the risk of making it seem like "every single male prior to 200 years ago is by some arbitrary definition..."misogynist"" Well, no, you have to move it away from the individual and think about how every single male of that time was embedded in a profoundly misogynist system, and could enjoy the privileges that came with that system. Exactly like today, actually. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. which is why i was dubious of this whole thing. But how do you say "they treated women like shit" without also saying "but so did everyone else". Otherwise, you become the excuse for someone who doesn't like Jesus, or Islam, or Nazi's to say "fuck - see, they hated women. no wonder they are bad!" My personal view is either take it all out with a bit of "most of history has been controlled by men, and the societies tended to dismiss women in general" or the long winded "they were X, but these parts of them were progressive for the time". Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 16:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

But how do you say "they treated women like shit" without also saying "but so did everyone else". How about, "Muhammad thought he was acting on orders from God while doing so, while others did not"? Sort of like the distinction C.S. Lewis drew between a Spanish Inquisitor and a robber baron. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What do either of those examples have to do with anything? Robber baron and inquisitor were both horrific types of people. Mohommud was, for his day, changing the world for women. That is no small thing, LX. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 03:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Go to the dictionary and look up the word "archetype," which in this case applies to the Inquisitor and robber baron. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Historic Misogyny

This section bothers me. The argument seems to boil down to "because sexism was widespread and the norm, it's not fair to criticize people for being sexist." That begs the question of sexism being a totalizing thing: a lot of people were sexist because a lot of people were sexist. Alright, what about other ideas that were in circulation at the time? It's like letting someone off the hook for owning slaves in 1800 because slavery was so widespread and was the norm. Do you know what else was widespread in 1800? A very vocal abolitionist movement that you could choose to support. Also, there's a sense of contemporary superiority at play here, relegating nasty ideas to the past because we're so morally evolved: "Well, unlike now, misogyny was acceptable, so we have to take that into account when judging how they treated women." That loses me at "unlike now," because misogyny is still the norm in lots of circles, and I'm not just talking about buses in Delhi. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 19:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My problem with the section, and with trying to lable anyone in the past, is the fact that saying "mohommad married a 6-13 year old girl" is shocking. it's done for the show, to make you see how "bad" he was, despite teh fact that it was the norm. on the flip said, saying "mo allowed women to be beaten 4 times" doesn't deal with the fact that before he did this, they could be legally beaten to death. you cannot label past events. the best you have is to show them, and then try to put them in context, and leave the judgment to the reader.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

One thing that might be noteable, by the way, are situations where the person in question was more "anti women" than the culture he was in. Augistine, for example, pushed for a far more dramatic removal of women from the religion than other Christian leaders had done up to that point. Even that has fail points, though. was he expressing a anti-women sentiment from his culture that was simply more harsh over 100 years (which seems a case, if you look at other greek writings of the 300s.) Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I included the section because there are a lot of people who call various historic figures sexists, while they were no sexist then their times, or even less sexist then their time. As for 'a lot of people were sexist, so its ok for so-and-so be sexist', I intended it to be read more like 'society was sexist, so its atleast understandable for so-and-so be sexist'. And yes, while I find slavery reprehensible, I can understand why people did it.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the best criterion there is to draw a distinction between people who were just going along with society becaue they had no convictions of their own on the matter, and those who did have such convictions, even if their convictions were in line with mainstream opinion.

Another argument, at least in Muhammad's case, is that while some people might see him as a "progressive" doing the best he could for women given the prevailing situation, he saw himself very differently, viz., as receiving commandments from God by seizure revelation; which is how the rules he dictated regarding women are treated today, except perhaps by Islamic feminists who project some of their own views onto Muhammad.

Also, I personally have a slight issue with letting off a fellow who pops a 9-year-old girl's cherry just because it was legal and commonly practiced at the time. One could say the same thing of marital rape before it was outlawed in this country. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

How easy is it to make that distinction? Nihilist 09:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is, it's a sad day when Winston Churchill is referred to as a "racist fucker" and a child-abuser like Muhammad is given a free pass. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why was he a child abuser? You do know that most girls were married before they were 13 throughout our entire history of humanity. I'm sorry, not all of those men are child molesters. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 03:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that sort of an appeal to popularity? As time goes on, people view it as progress that more and more kinds of behaviors are viewed as exploitative. The individual is assumed to be benefiting from being protected in more and more ways from having the freedom to consent to exploitation. Science says that the brain isn't fully developed till age 25, so who knows, maybe that will eventually be the age of consent. Landmartian (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it reads more as an attempt to appeal to moral relativism. Older cultures didn't have the education and social science understanding to grasp how young marriages hurt women, at least not to the same extent. That people can reasonably be judged on what they might have clearly understood to be right and wrong. Considering that Churchill was behind one of the least acknowledged genocides in history(and we made clear in Nuremberg that we had the moral understanding of why that was wrong) , calling him a racist piece of shit is probably okay. Ikanreed (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Judaism thing

About the edit-warring starting with this edit: YS2JOBBIK at the Jewish Task Force forums is unhappy. The article probably needs citations and attention anyway, though.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs more sources. I'll see if I can dig some up, as soon as finals are over.

As for their complaints, they casually call us Nazis and their forum signature reads "Islam is a parasite that attempts to destroy nations from within. Destroy Islam before it destroys you! Death to Islam!" Let me know when a Jew who isn't a hypocritical bigot (People I disagree with are Nazis! Incidentally, people I don't like should be wiped off the Earth!) has complaints.

Also, the Jewish Task Force is Stormfront for Jews. That is not an exaggeration. This is like responding to the KKK's complaints about our human biodiversity article. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that when I had a look the front page to find out what "JTF" means. That's why I reproduced the user name - it's a reference to wp:Jobbik, isn't it?--ZooGuard (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

One of them also cited Metapedia's article about RW.

Anyway, that section could be a lot better sourced. The comments about ancient Judea were cited to a couple of offline history books by Christian theologians from the early-mid twentieth century. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Expanding the definition of misogyny

Is there some truth to the idea that the definition of misogyny is expanding to include more and more forms of dissent from the radical feminist party line? If so, is that bad or good? Does this show an intolerance of opposing, less politically correct, points of view, in which those who hold those views are personally attacked as misogynists rather than having their arguments being the main target of the criticism?

It seems similar to how the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" expands over time with new court decisions that prohibit more and more kinds of harsh punishment, which some regard as good because it shows society's standards are becoming more civilized. Misogyny now includes "entrenched prejudice of women" for example, rather than just a pathological loathing of women.[1]

One argument one might make, though, is that when previously strong words get used in an overbroad way, they may become diluted.[2] It's similar to how the definition of "rape" has been expanded to include even some admittedly consensual behaviors, in which one party was, say, "emotionally bereft" when they agreed to have sex.[3] It causes some people, who haven't yet bought into these new standards, when they hear "I was raped," to want to hear the particulars of what happened before they decide whether it was a big deal in their view. Landmartian (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Uh... what I'm going to say here is that this can be characterized not as an actual change in definition(because disdain for women is a relatively broad concept), but a more thorough consideration of what happens to meet that definition, particularly as anti-feminists change tactics due to PR problems with older ones. I mean, I get that people who view women as only slightly inferior to men aren't comfortable with being called misogynist. We can talk about that. The "not really rape" strawman isn't getting in the article and you should probably drop it. Ikanreed (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Inferiority is just a matter of opinion anyway. A gay guy could say, "For purposes of turning me on, women are inferior to men, because I'm not into boobs and vaginas." If I don't like something or find it useful, I don't think it means that I'm against that thing or want to see harm come to it.

The rape comment was just used as an analogy. I'm not sure what part of it you saw as a strawman. Landmartian (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not really a compelling argument. A personal preference(which can still be prejudicial, FYI) is not the same thing as the broad-based judgements that we're pretty clearly talking about here. It doesn't muddy the water like you're thinking it does. Ikanreed (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I see the problem more being one of criticism of particular aspects and/or particular types of feminism, not to mention of particular feminists, leading to frivolous allegations of misogynism in a similar way that criticism of Israel leads to allegations of anti-Semitism, the use of fascism/fascist as a general slur towards conservative/right wing groups or persons, or the infatuation of apparently broad sections of U.S. Republicans and Faux News with slapping the communist/Nazi labels on anything they happen to disapprove of. The problem is that in all of these cases, frivolous use of such serious labels risk leading to less concern about actual misogynists/anti-Semites/fascists/communists/Nazis. They will be able to slide under the radar more easily once these designations have been broadened/watered down or outright misapplied in this way. However, I must admit that I'm not aware of rape falling into this category (I haven't heard it used to refer to situations where forcible sexual intercourse wasn't the issue). ScepticWombat (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Most of the criticism about rape labeling really come from an inability to realize the importance of consent. They range from stupid "Would a girl drugging a guy and having sex with him be rape?" (Yes), to red herring "regret is not rape".

The allegations of this "wanton misogyny labeling" are pretty bad too. Unlike the issue of Israel where Noam Chomsky saying that the IDF shouldn't bomb Palestinian civilians has gotten him called a "self-hating Jew", people tend to not use the term misogyny like it's a shotgun. If anything, like the term racism, it will evolve and go into deeper forms of misogyny that are present in our society. We also must remember that frivolous use of labels doesn't water down the issue the label addresses, that is one thing that people seem to imply for no reason.

BlackProg (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I do see some "iffy" similarities between the allegations of institutional racism and patriarchy which seems to me to border on unfalsifiable conspiracy-thinking. Yes, both patriarchy and racism (institutional and otherwise) are real phenomena, but this doesn't mean that every disadvantage of women or Afro-Americans can be automatically chalked up either institutional racism or patriarchy. And I simply disagree with the idea that shotgun application of concepts doesn't run the risk of watering them down, because if we run around calling Obama a communist for presiding over less than ultra-libertarian free market initiatives, what are we going to call actual communists? Similarly, if we run around calling people who oppose Israel's policies anti-Semites, what are we going to call people who hate Jews? Personally, I think it's great that the "anti-Semitism allegations as shut up"-strategy is getting more and more ineffective in Europe (while seemingly still effective in the U.S.), but I realise that the accompanying problem is that this also risks lowering vigilance and raising tolerance of actual anti-Semitism in its various guises (most prominently from far right nationalists and Islamists). The problem is that once such a term becomes more of a convenient term of abuse, it risks losing its ability to accurately distinguish a particular ideology instead of a vague "someone whose opinion I don't like". ScepticWombat (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm reminded of what Orwell wrote, "It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else. . . . All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword." Also, "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'" Maybe this will happen with "misogyny" too. Landmartian (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Belief in women's inferiority, hatred of women, and belief that women should not have equal rights

The article says "Blatant and subtle institutionalized and social misogyny is still encountered everywhere in the world. This can manifest itself in laws regulating reproduction (specifically birth control and abortion) which prevent a woman from fully controlling her life, social barriers to accessing political and economic power, rape culture and acceptance of domestic abuse."

I think it's important to distinguish between concepts that fall under the umbrella of "misogyny", such as (1) belief in women's inferiority, (2) hatred of women, and (3) belief that women should not have equal rights. They can, but don't necessarily, overlap.

It's possible to believe someone is inferior and still believe that person deserves equal rights. Many libertarians, for instance, might believe that certain races or genders are generally inferior, but prefer to leave it up to the market to punish individuals for their inferior performance and choices, rather than having the government restrict those people's freedom. A sexist person who thinks women are mostly useless outside the bedroom might still find it to be very much in the interests of promoting his sex life, and helping him avoid paying child support for unwanted babies, to ensure that women have access to birth control.

There are many different types of love, one of which is eros, a possibly selfish love for what the person can do for you. A person who believes in women's intellectual inferiority might still find them quite enjoyable, and in that sense be a woman-loving misogynist.

Hatred usually manifests in cruelty, spitefulness, and wanting to destroy the object of one's hatred. That's different from a mere indifference toward the happiness of those one uses for one's own purposes. In fact, in many cases, those who don't hate, but merely desire to use, may find it in their own interests to look out for the well-being and happiness of others. Even psychopaths, for instance, will sometimes recognize the benefits to themselves of behaving in ways that are typical of those who have a conscience, by performing acts of apparent kindness that may enhance their own social standing and prompt others to return the favors.

It's also possible that one could favor restricting women's rights, without regarding women as being inferior. One could simply deem it to be in one's own interests to exert power over them, without regard to whether they're better or worse people than oneself. Not all politics are driven by ideology; some are driven by opportunistic desire to control resources for personal gain. When politics are driven by ideology, personal gain may be disregarded for what is deemed to be the greater good, however misguided one's conception of the greater good may be. Landmartian (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Misogyny and gynophilia

Hatred is also a very close emotion to love. Probably a lot of people who would love women, if they could get what they want from them, hate them because they cannot. Love can easily turn to hatred, and vice versa, because it can be difficult for passion to suddenly give way to indifference; often, it instead transforms into a different kind of passion. So then, would it be plausible to say that a lot of misogynists are also former or potential gynophiliacs, whose desires were frustrated?

Also, to hate someone, you usually have to have a grudging respect for them, for having enough power over you to make you feel such a strong emotion for them. If someone viewed women as truly worthless and weak, he would have little reason to hate them; he would instead be indifferent toward them. If, instead, they were highly desirable but unattainable, that might be more cause for hatred. But he has to admit, in that case, they do have qualities that make them worthy of desire.

It's the same way with foreigners who hate the U.S. for its invasions and other influence. They have to at least admit that the U.S. has been very successful in what it does, even if they disagree with its agenda. They have to admit that, in order to dominate economically, ideologically and militarily over the world, the U.S. has been more effective at building an economy, a propaganda machine, and a military than its less powerful rivals. If it were a failure, it would not be qualify to be considered the Great Satan. Landmartian (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Bro, I love you but this is a bit of mental masturbation for no reason. This literally is the argument homophobes use "I'm not afraid of gays, therefore I am not a homophobe SJW!"BlackProg (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Dichotomy

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)

On Nietzsche's misogyny

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

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, 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.

p.13

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, 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, 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, LeftyGreenMario! 21:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Misogyny#Historical_misogyny.3F

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, 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!

LMAO.

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 too, 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, 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, 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)

More explanation

I think the article needs more details put into it, also adding more religions, including pre-christian times. Dvir6 (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to edit it. CorruptUser 15:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Misogyny and religion

The article is titled 'Misogyny'. there is an section 'Misogyny and Religion'. the article is solely about Misogyny and religion, the section header is thus redundant and the article title should reflect the focus on religion

just struck me as funny for some reason. im gonna change some section headers, maybe. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

atheism and misogyny

i cut off half the edit comment so im saying it here.

if misogyny is a problem in the atheist community (i know there has been issues) we need to do more than just saying it has and linking to reddit. a bit of analysis to give it context at the very least AMassiveGay (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

definitions

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)

Transmisogyny

@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)