Misogyny

Post Reply New Topic

you didn't read the whole thing, obviously.

I just want the word to be useful. If misogyny means hatred of female childkillers I don't think the word is useful, or even understandable to most people. How would you know if the distaste was for the woman or the killer? Likewise how would you know if the OP has a problem with beautiful women or women who he assumes would reject him? The more I think about it, the more I agree with MCalavera.

I didn't read the whole thing. Can you excerpt the relevant bit that says misogyny can apply to subsets of women?

Last edited by fraac on 02 Jan 2012, 12:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

it isn't useful to consider misogyny the hatred of all women because that is so rarely encountered. a rapist who preys on women aged 20 to 30 because he hates them will not likely hate his own mother, aunt or grandmother, so he'd get a free pass as non-misogynistic as he would not fulfill that one definition.

Except we can argue that he is simply because he hates these 20 to 30 year old women because they're women.

This is not the same as arguing that the OP hates certain women because they frustrate him.

no, that doesn't work. because then he would hate ALL women.

Two points:

I think misogyny is a deep psychological thing where you hate all women.

And I don't think rapists generally work that way.

some rapists do, yes. i happen to have done extensive research on rapists who were also serial killers. those ones that were not opportunistic but rather misogynistic would often hold their mothers in high esteem. in your definition, they could not be misogynistic. so the definition becomes effectively useless.

So why did they rape? I very much doubt a misogynist would have a normal, healthy relationship with their mother.

Last edited by fraac on 02 Jan 2012, 1:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Bad logic.

He may not hate older women because his issue isn't with thier age range. But when it comes to women of the age range he hates, he hates them because they're women. Otherwise, he would also hate men 20 to 30 years old, too.

hyperlexian, I admire your energy on this and envy your certainty. I see shades of grey everywhere. There is a boundary between misogyny and not-misogyny, but to me that boundary is fluid. What I care about is harm to women. I believe misogyny can be [EDIT outwardly] harmless - even laughable; but it is still misogyny [EDIT and still doing harm to the carrier]. On the other hand, a vicious act to a woman may not be a manifestation of misogyny as such (although when it is between strangers I cannot see it any other way). The point is surely to avert harm, wherever it rests or is directed, before it can reach its target. What we call it is secondary. But I grant you that is all becoming a bit metaphysical and I hereby blame my fuzzyheadedness on 40-plus degrees Celsius and Acquired Sobriety Syndrome, heh.

[EDITS - fraac, thanks for the reminder]

Last edited by HighPlateau on 02 Jan 2012, 1:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

complicated question, and often (but not always) unrelated to their female relatives. misogyny is a cultural phenomenon, but men and women also generalise based on negative experiences. for example a sociopathic or narcissistic man may have been rejected by blonde women in college, then prey on blonde college students.

if he only has an issue with women of a certain age range and you consider that misogyny, then the OP's hatred of women of a certain type would also be misogyny. you can't have it both ways.

If someone hates then they've already done harm. That's why we should be helping the OP.

Nope, because I've already explained his frustration with them isn't because they're women but because of his perception of their attitude against him.

The rapist/serial killer in your scenario sees a 20-30 year old woman and acts according to the hatred based on her simply being a woman regardless of behavior or attitude.

You two [hyperlexian/MCalavera] appear to have engaged in personal battle and the effect is to shut others out. It appears the focal point has shifted from the topic itself to the personal engagement between you. For that reason, what was an interesting discussion has stopped being so to me. Just sayin.

Might pop back later.

i personally think that the only way to eliminate misogyny, racism, or any other similar issue is for people to break out of the idea that generalised hate towards groups of people can be justified. to me, it is erroneous thinking at best, and damaging at worst.

when people hate groups of other people - whether those "others" are different racial groups or another gender for example (or subgroups thereof), they will find justifications for that hate. they will seek reinforcement of the belief they already hold, and apply their hate without regard to the individuals within the group. people who hate 30 to 40-year-old Chinese people will come up with elaborate reasons why their hatred is justified. every time a thirtysomething Chinese man cuts them off in traffic, it will reinforce the ideas.

the reason i was trying to break down the criteria of the group "abusive women" (we could do this for any group) is because without specific guidelines for this or any other group, it can become a catchall to throw people into based of avering criteria. no person is 100% objective, so if an individual is deciding to hate what they call "abusive women", there is no reason to believe that they can fairly determine who should fit into that category. it will inevitably become an unfair generalisation as no single person is capable of deciding which people should be put into that group. i sincerely doubt we could even agree on a definition of "abuse" much less agree who should fit into that category, so it is dangerous to trust that any hate would be fairly applied.

please note that i'm only using "abusive women as an example because it has been mentioned in the thread. we could just as easily flip it and discuss misandric hatred toward "unscrupulous businessmen".