I was just looking at the thread Is Twilight Misogynistic? And I thought to myself…is this really what the phrase “misogynistic” has come to mean? A situation where a woman gives up her independence for a man is “misogynistic?” In other words, the term is being used to mean “the opposite of feminist,” at least in this case. But as I understand it, “misogynistic” means “hates women.”
In my opinion, a misogynist is someone who would say, “I fucking hate women, they’re all a bunch of useless cunts, and their only purpose in life is for me to fuck them. I have no respect for women and I consider them to be scum.” So when people talk about something that’s even just slightly patronizing towards women as being misogynist, I feel like the term is getting watered down.
I don’t think you read that thread very closely if you thought that people’s objection to Twilight was that it merely presented a “situation where a woman gives up her independence for a man”.
I’ll try to restrain myself from restating all my problems with this horrible book here, but it glamorizes an obviously abusive relationship, repeatedly describes the controlling, stalker vampire boy as “perfect”, and depicts the young heroine as having no personality traits beyond whininess and vulnerability. This is a girl so helpless that she literally cannot walk through a doorway without falling over. The fact that the heroine eventually (not in Twilight, but in a later book) decides to forget about college so she can get married and be a vampire housewife for all eternity is actually one of the less objectionable things about the series.
Wow. I haven’t read the book, but judging by your description of it, which I trust, it sounds quite horrible. I have seen the ugly face of the movie’s star plastered all over the magazines at the supermarket checkout.
I think “misogynistic,” which dictionaries define as entailing dislike and distrust as well as hatred of women, should be given more slack than the OP allows.
That said, the word does seem in common parlance to have developed at least one additional meaning beyond that core dictionary set of meanings: the undermining of women (that is, of their autonomy, integrity, self-respect, and so forth).
From what I hear, the later books get even worse. I haven’t read past the first one so I don’t know all the details, but there’s apparently a scene early in the third book where the heroine Bella wants to go see her best friend (a guy), but vampire boyfriend Edward doesn’t want her to. So he steals the engine from her car so she can’t go anywhere. He later resorts to bribing his sister to kidnap Bella to keep her away from the other guy.
But this is okay because Edward loves Bella and only wants to protect her. :smack:
Maybe there is more than one way to “hate” womanhood.
A feminist is one who believes in the economic, social, and political equality of women. A feminist can be a male or a female. It can be a very traditional girlie-girl who chooses homemaking and stay-at-home motherhood and it can be someone who juggles career with fatherhood. If you respect gender equality in those three areas, then you can consider yourself a feminist. Basically, it’s just having simple respect for her personhood.
(Most of the feminists that I know and have known also have a mutual respect for men and a desire for gender equality. That’s why the Equal Rights Amendment is about gender discrimination – not about women.
So I think that if a person really is anti-feminist in that sense – if they are against gender equality – then they must hate women in some way and also deserve the label misogynist. Liking a woman’s body doesn’t mean you like women.
OK, well, for instance, I always hear people calling Tucker Max a misogynist. What’s the justification for that? In fact, I frequently hear any man who sleeps with a lot of women called a misogynist. I’ve heard people call James Bond a misogynist character. Why? Where is the hatred for women here?
I’m not familiar with Tucker Max, but I agree that the James Bond of the Fleming novels (less so the films) is misogynist. He doesn’t like women as people, just as objects. He doesn’t respect or trust them.
I don’t think a man who sleeps with a lot of women is necessarily misogynist, but I do think it is misogynist to value a woman ONLY for her perceived sexuality.
Quoted for truth.
I would define misogyny as “treating women as if they were less than human,” which in my opinion necessarily entails some hatred – otherwise, why deny our personhood?
As long as he is not misleading them, I don’t think that sleeping with a lot of women is reason to call him a misogynist.
Some men who sleep with a lot of women choose to use very manipulative behaviors in order to seduce the woman. They are dishonest about their intentions or uninterested in anything about the woman except her body. When that kind of behavior becomes a way of life, I can’t help but believe that that way of thinking about women becomes ingrained in the psyche.
James Bond in the movies couldn’t have been a misogynist or he would never have had the experiences that he did in In Her Majesty’s Secret Service. In general I think he was very smooth and seductive with women without being misleading.
(I’m talking about him in the past tense. That’s just showing my age.)
I’m not sure about that. “Misogynistic” seems to me to imply a prejudice/dislike/disdain specifically targeted at women. Someone who is generally manipulative or self centered would treat women like that, but he wouldn’t qualify as misogynistic by my standards. Because that’s the way he treats everyone; he’s just focusing on sex when it comes to women because he’s heterosexual and that’s what he wants from them.
Would the same fellow switched to homosexual, who would then lie to and manipulate men to get them into bed be a misandrist?
Well, since I started a thread about Tucker Max, I’ll try to explain. I don’t object that Tucker sleeps with a lot of women and enjoys himself; I do object to the way he treats women as objects. Tucker’s “facts” apparently include "Sexism isn’t the same as misogyny, you stupid bitch,” and “the best thing about fat girls is heart disease.” He has been quoted as saying “all women are whores,” and telling his female fans, “I’m trying to get you drunk so you can’t consent to sex.” His website includes a rating scale for women that ranges from “wildebeast” to “common-stock pig” to “super hottie.” In one of his early stories, Tucker asked a friend to hide in his bedroom closet and make a videotape of Tucker and his girlfriend having anal sex for the first time. The woman was not told that the friend would be watching or videotaping. Also, the story was published with personally identifying information about the woman, which was unnecessary to the story and embarrassing to her. I certainly accept that people will differ about what behaviors or statements are bad enough to be labeled “misogynistic,” but for me, these gems from Tucker Max fit the bill.
I don’t think hatred is a necessary element. I think some men think of women similarly to children (intellectually rather than physiologically speaking) or even pets. It’s certainly disrepectful, but hatred? How many men hate their dogs?
Yes—or what about men who put women on a pedestal, and think of them as delicate flowers to be protected and idealized? Or who, without bearing any animosity toward women at all, believe that men and women inhabit totally different spheres: that there’s “men’s work” and “women’s work,” that “a woman’s place is in the home”? Who essentially hold an archaic view of the sexes? Anti-feminist, yes; misogynistic, not necessarily.
Because women aren’t dogs or children. We’re human adults. Treating us as if we are not people is malicious and harmful. I guess there might be a difference between “malicious and harmful” and “hateful” but it’s too thin for me to see.