# Has the term "misogynistic" lost all of its meaning? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 23, 2009, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597 "2009-11-23T02:51:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/81 "2009-11-23T23:05:23Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Why does it list “Hatred or dislike”? Is “hatred” alternative in meaning to “dislike”, or complementary? Because “hatred” and “dislike” are different concepts with different meanings, would be my guess. > [@](#): > > Seems to me that the three (hatred, dislike, prejudice) are all ‘of a kind’. They represent different ways of explaining the core meaning - an animus directed against women. I don’t think anyone would disagree that the three concepts are similar, or that prejudice does not carry a core of animus against the object. Indeed, that idea is at the heart of the argument that prejudice against women is misogynistic. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/82 "2009-11-23T23:06:22Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > (a) is irrelevant, and (b) is flatly false. Hardly. You were asked to produce any sort of argument or cite; you failed to. Someone else produced one, but it does not mean what they, and you, assume. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/83 "2009-11-23T23:10:24Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This shows an incorrect understanding of not only the word, but the Greek roots of the word. > > “Homophobia” was an informally constructed word to denote general hostility, aversion, prejudice, bigotry, etc. towards homosexuals. It’s not a clinical phobia and has never had been intended to imply only literal “fear.” > > Even if you look at the Greek roots, _homo_, does not man “homosexual,” but “same” (though I think it often gets confused with the Latin word of the same spelling, meaning “man”). So breaking “homophia” down to the roots does not give you “fear of homosxuals,” but “fear of the same.” > > It’s a poorly conceived neologism, but the meaning it has now is the meaning it had when it was invented. The fact that the “homo” in “homophobia” was cribbed from “homosexual” and therefore results in a word that cannot itself be broken down to meaningful greek roots bothers me not one whit. And I’m not convinced that the word-part “phobia” was chosen completely at random. With homosexuals, the _only_\* reason to have general hostility, aversion, prejudice, bigotry, etc. towards them is a gut reaction - they aren’t a real threat and they haven’t got a coherent enough role in society to be threatening based on being in or flauting that role. So, it seems sensible that when the word was coined that it was understood that such behaviors _were_ based in actual fear and irrational aversion - hence the choice of the word-part “phobia”. I’d have to see a _real_ good argument to convince me that the word was not initially associated with fear. - that and religion, and I think all religious elements have a source in man’s motivations. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/84 "2009-11-23T23:13:32Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Because “hatred” and “dislike” are different concepts with different meanings, would be my guess. Sure, they are different concepts. But they are complementary in meaning. > [@](#): > > I don’t think anyone would disagree that the three concepts are similar, or that prejudice does not carry a core of animus against the object. **Indeed, that idea is at the heart of the argument that prejudice against women is misogynistic.** Emphasis added. What exactly does “prejudice against women is misogynistic” _mean_, if “misogyny” does not carry of necessity the implication of hatred, dislike, etc.? I disagree: “prejudice” does not, _of necessity_, imply antagonism; misogyny _does_. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/85 "2009-11-23T23:19:50Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > I’ve heard people call _James Bond_ a misogynist character. Why? Where is the _hatred_ for women here? I don’t know if this is what is meant by those you’ve heard, but while you might make an argument that the film James Bond is misogynistic, the _literary_ Bond certainly is, as well as being considerably more of a bastard in general. Distrust of, patronisation, and, yes, hatred of women are all things you might well find coming out of book Bond’s mouth. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/86 "2009-11-23T23:19:58Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I disagree: “prejudice” does not, of necessity, imply antagonism; misogyny does. The OED says you’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/87 "2009-11-23T23:20:38Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Whether you found it enlightening is one thing, but it’s definitely worthwhile pointing out when you disagree with someone’s opinion in a debate thread. And I gave a reason why I disagreed. Your post was tantamount to saying “you’re wrong” and then walking away. As a post in a great debate, explaining how you reached your conclusions is rather important. Your examples are not that far off from what I wrote. Bitterness towards women, either because of past rejection or because of social programming, reveals itself in many ways. I find it often boils down to thinking a man can’t be attracted to woman physically and also respect her as a normal human being. The more attraction a man feels, the more likely he is to consider her “irrational and cruel” to use your words. After all, the guys you’re coaching aren’t griping about the ugly, plainly dressed obese women…because these aren’t the women they are trying to date. They are griping about the hotties who won’t give them the time of day. The ugly women might as well not even exist. They aren’t even women, for all these men are considered. Think about it. > [@](#): > > I’d also raise you the resentment that stems from the belief that women are in a more privilaged position in society. I know, it’s ironic given the history, but many guys feel like women have an easier time of things, and feel resentment for that. I think some of this stems from the belief that women are slutty manipulators who are not to be trusted. Again, they’re only talking about attractive women when they come up with this view. An attractive woman has power (over them and others) and they assume that any woman with this power, is going to abuse it. I’ve actually seen this view expressed in subtle ways on this board. It came up in the Real Dolls discussion a while back. And as you suggest, they also blame women for the rigid gender roles that society has created, that prevents them from expressing their emotions and being soft and nurturing. They are mad at women who like the “strong, silent type” but oddly enough, they lash out at women who say they don’t go for that type. Why? Because these women clearly are lying. That’s what women do, silly. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/88 "2009-11-23T23:21:55Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > How about “bigot.” “Bigot” is a very broad term. If I say, “Bill’s a bigot,” I’ve told you that he has a prejudice or hatred of a group. But which group? Blacks? Women? Gays? If it’s the first group, I could say, “Bill’s a racist.” Or “Bill’s a sexist,” for the second group. If I come to the last group, I can say that Bill’s a… what, other than homophobe? > [@](#): > > And regarding homophobia being rare: nonsense. Nearly everyone I know is “squicked out” by homosexuals. I am. This is largely a consequence of never having met such people - or if we have, not knowing we have. (Though the pervasive religious attitudes around here -which I personally don’t share- certiainly don’t help matters when they explicitly paint homosexuals as bad.) But if you want to argue that the term should be used in it’s original sense, which, contrary to **Malthus** ’s misconceptions, [did indeed refer to a clinical aversion to homosexuals](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Etymology_and_usage), that is to say, a literal phobia. As such, applying it to people who are simply “squicked out” by homosexuals is as much of a degradation of meaning as applying it to people who are actively prejudiced against gays. > [@](#): > > The term has utility _because_ it’s limited. If we call any plant a “tree”, then “tree” loses most of it’s useful meaning. I know _why_ people use wrong words for things: for emphais, or to convey a slant. Or in the case of “misogynist”, to convey a stronger insult. But the thing I can’t understand is why people feel the need to _defend_ such statements as correct usage of the word, when it’s clear they’re not. I think you’re overstating the strength of your side of the argument. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/89 "2009-11-23T23:24:24Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I disagree: “prejudice” does not, _of necessity_, imply antagonism; misogyny _does_. Then why did they use “prejudice” to describe misogyny, instead of a word that does necessarily imply antagonism, such as, say, hatred? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/90 "2009-11-23T23:29:56Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > “Bigot” is a very broad term. If I say, “Bill’s a bigot,” I’ve told you that he has a prejudice or hatred of a group. But which group? Blacks? Women? Gays? If it’s the first group, I could say, “Bill’s a racist.” Or “Bill’s a sexist,” for the second group. If I come to the last group, I can say that Bill’s a… what, other than homophobe? > > But if you want to argue that the term should be used in it’s original sense, which, contrary to **Malthus** ’s misconceptions, [did indeed refer to a clinical aversion to homosexuals](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Etymology_and_usage), that is to say, a literal phobia. As such, applying it to people who are simply “squicked out” by homosexuals is as much of a degradation of meaning as applying it to people who are actively prejudiced against gays. > > I think you’re overstating the strength of your side of the argument. Misconceptions? The cite claimed the word “homophobia” was first used in a clinical context in 1971. I did not deny that it was ever used as such, only that it was _coined_ for that use. What I said is as follows: > [@](#): > > That’s exactly why "homophobia’ is not a analogous to “misogyny”. It was coined recently. While the use of the “-phobia” is confusing, it was never used or intended to be used as a word denoting only a clinical phobia. The word was not coined in 1971, but rather in the 1950s. How can a word coined in the 1950s and _first_ used in 1971 in a clinical context, have been _coined_ for clinical use? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/91 "2009-11-23T23:32:42Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > “Bigot” is a very broad term. If I say, “Bill’s a bigot,” I’ve told you that he has a prejudice or hatred of a group. But which group? Blacks? Women? Gays? If it’s the first group, I could say, “Bill’s a racist.” Or “Bill’s a sexist,” for the second group. If I come to the last group, I can say that Bill’s a… what, other than homophobe? Sometimes there just aren’t handy one-word terms for things. This can merit the creation of a new term. It also tends to _cause_ the corruption of the meaning of old terms, as they are co-opted by people who are not partiularly inclined towards verbal precision - but I don’t have to agree that the new (mis-)uses of the word are correct until the meaning of the word has totally finished shifting. And you can’t make me! > [@Miller](#): > > But if you want to argue that the term should be used in it’s original sense, which, contrary to **Malthus** ’s misconceptions, [did indeed refer to a clinical aversion to homosexuals](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Etymology_and_usage), that is to say, a literal phobia. As such, applying it to people who are simply “squicked out” by homosexuals is as much of a degradation of meaning as applying it to people who are actively prejudiced against gays. What, you don’t believe in the existence of mild phobias? Must every arachnophobe throw themselves from the nearest four-story window the instant they see a spider? I don’t think I’m altering the meaning at all using the term to refer to mild examples of the phenomenon. > [@Miller](#): > > I think you’re overstating the strength of your side of the argument. You think the argument “words are more useful when they are broadened to be less specific and more inclusive in their meaning” is somehow better? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/92 "2009-11-23T23:32:52Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Misconceptions? > > The cite claimed the word “homophobia” was first used in a clinical context in 1971. > > I did not deny that it was ever used as such, only that it was _coined_ for that use. My apologies: I misread my own cite. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/93 "2009-11-23T23:41:00Z")
It was used by a psychologist descriptively, as part of a personality profile, not a clinical phobia, and the “fear” was defined specifically as religious. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/94 "2009-11-23T23:41:45Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Then why did they use “prejudice” to describe misogyny, instead of a word that does necessarily imply antagonism, such as, say, hatred? Prejudice contains as _one_ of its root meanings the notion of unreasoning hostility. It is not however its _only_ root meaning, and the addition of “misogyny” indicates very clearly to the reader what is meant - anti-women animus, or merely a demonstration of (irrational) sexism or discrimination. Again, how could you construct a sentence like “Indeed, that idea is at the heart of the argument that prejudice against women is misogynistic”, unless on some level you (as is only natural) think that the two words contain different shades of meaning? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/95 "2009-11-23T23:43:52Z")
Prejudice does not have to imply hostility. It means to “Pre-judge,” or make assumptions based on irrelevant characterists. For instance, it may be “prejudiced” to assume that a white guy can’t dunk a basketball, but it’s not hostile or hateful. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/96 "2009-11-23T23:44:22Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Sometimes there just aren’t handy one-word terms for things. This can merit the creation of a new term. It also tends to _cause_ the corruption of the meaning of old terms, as they are co-opted by people who are not partiularly inclined towards verbal precision - but I don’t have to agree that the new (mis-)uses of the word are correct until the meaning of the word has totally finished shifting. And you can’t make me! I have four large gentlemen with clubs who would like to put that claim to the test. 😉 But that’s a moot point if **Malthus** is correct that the word was originally coined to refer to prejudice against homosexuals in general, and not as a clinical designation. Of course, either way, your argument is voided. > [@](#): > > What, you don’t believe in the existence of mild phobias? Must every arachnophobe throw themselves from the nearest four-story window the instant they see a spider? Yes. Well, not necessarily out a four story window (for example, if they see a spider on the first floor, they don’t need to climb three flights of stairs before the defenestration.) But properly a phobia should indeed be an extreme reaction to a normally innocuous subject. Most people are creeped out by spiders. This does not mean that most people suffer from “mild” arachnophobia. So, when it comes to the word “homophobia,” we can take it in one of two senses: as an actual diagnosable phobia, or as a catchall for people who work actively against gay rights, or discriminate against gays in day-to-day life. Regardless of which meaning is original, if you’re going to argue for the former on the grounds of language purity, you must perforce eliminate yourself from that definition, or you’ve lost your internal consistency. Because as near as I can tell, the term has never been intended to describe people who are merely uncomfortable around homosexuals. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/97 "2009-11-23T23:48:03Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Prejudice does not have to imply hostily. It means to “Pre-judge,” or make assumptions based on irrelevant characterists. For instance, it may be “prejudiced” to asume that a white guy can’t dunk a basketball, but it’s not hostile or hateful. Exactly my point. “Prejudice” may, in certain circumstances, have a meaning of hostility; in others, it does not. “Misogyny” on the other hand always implies hostility or animus. it may be “pejudiced” or “sexist” to assume that women cannot succeed in some endeavour when actual evidence suggests otherwise; it is not however of necessity “misogynist”. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/98 "2009-11-23T23:51:37Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Exactly my point. > > “Prejudice” may, in certain circumstances, have a meaning of hostility; in others, it does not. > > “Misogyny” on the other hand always implies hostility or animus." Or prejudice, according to the OED. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/99 "2009-11-23T23:52:00Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Prejudice contains as _one_ of its root meanings the notion of unreasoning hostility. It is not however its _only_ root meaning, and the addition of “misogyny” indicates very clearly to the reader what is meant - anti-women animus, or merely a demonstration of (irrational) sexism or discrimination. Exactly. It has more than one root meaning - and you’ve provided no basis for us to believe that the OED intended only the meaning you agree with to be used. The fact that they used other words that already contained that meaning to define the word, prior to the word “prejudice,” is a clear indicator that they intended the less extreme versions of the word to apply to the definition of misogyny. Otherwise, there’s absolutely no reason to use “prejudice” in the definition. The extreme connotations are already covered by “hatred.” More directly, using your definition of the word, what is communicated by the use of the word “prejudice” that was not already communicated by “hatred or dislike?” > [@](#): > > Again, how could you construct a sentence like “Indeed, that idea is at the heart of the argument that prejudice against women is misogynistic”, unless on some level you (as is only natural) think that the two words contain different shades of meaning? I don’t see how that sentence necessarily connotes different shades of meaning between prejudice and misogyny. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/100 "2009-11-23T23:54:23Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > What, you don’t believe in the existence of mild phobias? Must every arachnophobe throw themselves from the nearest four-story window the instant they see a spider? > > I don’t think I’m altering the meaning at all using the term to refer to mild examples of the phenomenon. I might as well also ask, if X-phobia can be stretched to cover mild aversions to X, what, precisely, is your objection to using misogyny to cover mild aversions to women? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597.md?page=6)