# 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:** 6
**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 24, 2009, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/101 "2009-11-24T00:11:40Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I have four large gentlemen with clubs who would like to put that claim to the test. > > 😉 But I don’t go to clubs! 😛 > [@Miller](#): > > 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. How is it voided? How much you wanna bet the word was coined by the _opposition_ to bigotry against homosexuals, as a pejorative insult? And thus _literally_ meant “you idiots are only persecuting them/us because you’re afraid of us”? 'Cause I can’t imagine any other way for the word-part “phobia” to end up in there. Can you? > [@Miller](#): > > 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. I disagree with this. I think that mild phobia are still phobias. Arachnophobia in particular is commonly understood to include any fear of spiders, thanks to the movie of the same name. If you believe otherwise, that “phobia” _only_ refers to severe clinical cases, I don’t expect to convince you any different. But suffice to say you’re not going to convince me otherwise either. > [@Miller](#): > > 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. You excluded a middle there. And above is _my_ guess as to its origin, which seems a great deal more likely than your non-clinical origin speculation. (“Hey we hate gays - lets call ourselves chickens!”) Near as I can tell, the word is commonly used to describe fear of and/or aversion to homosexuals (of various levels of intensity), and actually I don’t often see it misused to mean “bigotry against homosexuals”, when it doesn’t _also_ imply that that bigotry is based in irrational fear and aversion. > [@Miller](#): > > 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? I’m willing to let “misogyny” mean mild hatreds of women too, but there are _lots_ of ways to be bigoted against women that have nothing to do with hating them, so in a lot of cases the use of the term is flat wrong, just like calling an ice cream cone a popsicle is. Contrast homophobia, where most of the motivations against gays really _do_seem to be based in an aversion to homosexuals - and the ones that are not, like emotionlessly obeying your preachers, when these reasons are _called_ homophobic it is a descriptor, painting such rules as having been originally based in an emotional aversion to homosexuals feelings, or as being something you would only obey if you are averse to homosexuals _too_. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/102 "2009-11-24T00:12:45Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > 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.” I disagree that exactly the same meaning is conveyed. The shade of meaning conveyed by “prejudice” is that the issue has been prejudged on no rational or defensible basis. In context, it is clear that the _issue being prejudged in the case of misogyny_ is that of the person’s attitude towards women - which is, I submit, not supposed to be positive. > [@](#): > > 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?” Easy. The meaning of _unreasoning or irrational_ hostility. “Hatred or dislike” could be quite rational reactions under some circumstances. For example, “I hate and dislike Nazis”. Hatred and dislike is not an _unreasonable or irrational_ reaction to Nazis; it is not a “prejudice”. It is to women, and the OED is quite correct to point that out. In contrast, are you claiming that if I say “women can’t knit at all compared to men” I’m behaving in a _misogynist_ manner? I’ll admit that the statement is _prejudiced_ in that I have no reasonable basis to believe women cannot in fact knit as well as men; but _misogynist_? No reasonable person would not find that a bit of a stretch. Yet your interpretation requires that stretch to be made. Therefore, it cannot be correct. > [@](#): > > I don’t see how that sentence necessarily connotes different shades of meaning between prejudice and misogyny. I do. Otherwise, no actual meaning is conveyed. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/103 "2009-11-24T00:33:38Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > 'Cause I can’t imagine any other way for the word-part “phobia” to end up in there. Can you? The combining form “-phobia” can mean aversion rather than fear. It has been used this way in English for over 200 years. For instance, “photophobia” does not mean “fear of light” but rather an aversion to light. The earliest cite for “-phobia” given in the OED (1803) is “He is a very laconic personage, and has upon him the penphobia.” This obviously does not mean that the man in question suffers from a fear of pens, it means that he doesn’t like to write. ---
**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 24, 2009, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/104 "2009-11-24T00:36:55Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > The combining form “-phobia” can mean aversion rather than fear. It has been used this way in English for over 200 years. For instance, “photophobia” does not mean “fear of light” but rather an aversion to light. The earliest cite for “-phobia” given in the OED (1803) is “He is a very laconic personage, and has upon him the penphobia.” This obviously does not mean that the man in question suffers from a fear of pens, it means that he doesn’t like to write. I think this \*supports \*my position, actually. 🙂 ---
**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 24, 2009, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/105 "2009-11-24T00:42:50Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > How much you wanna bet the word was coined by the _opposition_ to bigotry against homosexuals, as a pejorative insult? And thus _literally_ meant “you idiots are only persecuting them/us because you’re afraid of us”? Okay, let’s say that’s true. Do you think the first person to use the term was scrupulous in only applying it to bigots after he had ascertained that they experienced a visceral aversion to gays? Or do you think he used to it describe anyone who was prejudiced against gays, whether they had that visceral aversion or not? Because if it’s the latter, then you’re arguing that the person who coined the term is also misusing the term. > [@](#): > > I disagree with this. I think that mild phobia are still phobias. Arachnophobia in particular is commonly understood to include any fear of spiders, thanks to the movie of the same name. Sure. And homophobia is commonly understood to include any prejudice against homosexuals. And misogyny is commonly understood to include any prejudice against women. And I don’t have any objection to any three of these usages. You, on the other hand, have objections to two of these uses, but not to the third. Which strikes me as inconsistent, because from where I’m sitting, including any and all aversion to spiders under “arachnophobia” is just as much a misuse of the term as using homophobia to describe any and all aversion to homosexuals. Actually, more so, because there’s apparently evidence that “homophobia” was never intended to apply only to a phobic reaction to gays. > [@](#): > > If you believe otherwise, that “phobia” _only_ refers to severe clinical cases, I don’t expect to convince you any different. But suffice to say you’re not going to convince me otherwise either. I don’t believe that. I have no problem using “phobia” to describe all manner of fears, aversions, dislikes, or prejudices. But then, I’m not one of those people who believes in the “degradation” of language. You, on the other hand, have taken the prescriptivist position in this thread, but you don’t apply it evenly. You insist that terms retain their original meaning in some cases, but argue for the “debased” meaning in others. ---
**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 24, 2009, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/106 "2009-11-24T01:00:25Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Okay, let’s say that’s true. Do you think the first person to use the term was scrupulous in only applying it to bigots after he had ascertained that they experienced a visceral aversion to gays? Or do you think he used to it describe anyone who was prejudiced against gays, whether they had that visceral aversion or not? Because if it’s the latter, then you’re arguing that the person who coined the term is also misusing the term. No - they were using it correctly but unjustly. There’s a difference. Like, if I were to call Steven Hawking a moron, it’s not because I think the word now means “genius”. It’s because I’m insulting him. > [@Miller](#): > > Sure. And homophobia is commonly understood to include any prejudice against homosexuals. And misogyny is commonly understood to include any prejudice against women. And I don’t have any objection to any three of these usages. You, on the other hand, have objections to two of these uses, but not to the third. Which strikes me as inconsistent, because from where I’m sitting, including any and all aversion to spiders under “arachnophobia” is just as much a misuse of the term as using homophobia to describe any and all aversion to homosexuals. Perhaps it would help if you didn’t misunderstand/misstate my position. Arachnophobia is fear/irrational aversion of spiders. Arachnophobia is _not_ any prejudice or abuse of spiders unless that prejudice or abuse is based in fear/irrational aversion. Homophobia is fear/irrational aversion of homosexuals. Homophobia is _not_ any prejudice or abuse of homosexuals unless that prejudice or abuse is based in fear/irrational aversion. Misogyny is hatred of women. Misogyny is _not_ any prejudice or abuse of women unless that prejudice or abuse is based in hatred. > [@Miller](#): > > Actually, more so, because there’s apparently evidence that “homophobia” was never intended to apply only to a phobic reaction to gays. Whatever, man. > [@Miller](#): > > I don’t believe that. I have no problem using “phobia” to describe all manner of fears, aversions, dislikes, or prejudices. But then, I’m not one of those people who believes in the “degradation” of language. You, on the other hand, have taken the prescriptivist position in this thread, but you don’t apply it evenly. You insist that terms retain their original meaning in some cases, but argue for the “debased” meaning in others. I’m inconsistent about the ‘original meaning’ thing in one way: I do not feel compelled to honor _ancient_ definitions, like greek roots. My baseline is “what I think the word means _now_.” This contrasts with “whatever crazy thing _you_ think the word means now”. Succinctly, I don’t think that misogyny has lost its original meaning, not quite yet - all “wrong” uses of it are deliberately hyperbolic or slanted (like idiot Hawking), or simply wrong. ---
**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 24, 2009, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/107 "2009-11-24T01:03:18Z")
Sorry, lost half the post there is a tragic cut and paste accident. > [@begbert2](#): > > You excluded a middle there. And above is _my_ guess as to its origin, which seems a great deal more likely than your non-clinical origin speculation. (“Hey we hate gays - lets call ourselves chickens!”) What middle did I exclude? And where did you get the idea that I think homophobia was coined by people who were opposed to gay rights? > [@](#): > > Near as I can tell, the word is commonly used to describe fear of and/or aversion to homosexuals (of various levels of intensity), and actually I don’t often see it misused to mean “bigotry against homosexuals”, when it doesn’t _also_ imply that that bigotry is based in irrational fear and aversion. Doesn’t bigotry itself imply an irrational fear and/or aversion? Maybe it would help if you could posit an example of someone who is bigoted against homosexuals, but not a homophobe? If all anti-gay bigots are also homophobes, I’m not sure what we’re arguing over any more. If you simply want to reserve the right to call yourself a homophobe without also calling yourself a bigot… well, I can understand the logic behind your argument, but not the reason for it. Wouldn’t it be easier to mark “homophobe” as the exclusive provenance of bigots, and simply consider yourself to be someone who’s uncomfortable around gays? > [@](#): > > I’m willing to let “misogyny” mean mild hatreds of women too, but there are _lots_ of ways to be bigoted against women that have nothing to do with hating them, so in a lot of cases the use of the term is flat wrong, just like calling an ice cream cone a popsicle is. Which, I suspect, is the source of the disagreement here: is it possible to be bigoted against someone without holding some degree of hatred towards them, and related to that, how mild can a hatred be before it becomes something other than hatred? > [@](#): > > Contrast homophobia, where most of the motivations against gays really _do_seem to be based in an aversion to homosexuals - and the ones that are not, like emotionlessly obeying your preachers, when these reasons are _called_ homophobic it is a descriptor, painting such rules as having been originally based in an emotional aversion to homosexuals feelings, or as being something you would only obey if you are averse to homosexuals _too_. And now I’ve totally lost the plot. I thought your objection to using “homophobia” to describe anti-gay bigotry was that some significant portion of anti-gay bigotry was not based in a literal fear of gays. So… what the hell are we actually arguing about? ---
**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 24, 2009, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/108 "2009-11-24T01:08:20Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Doesn’t bigotry itself imply an irrational fear and/or aversion? Maybe it would help if you could posit an example of someone who is bigoted against homosexuals, but not a homophobe? It’s hard to find an example of nonaversive bigotry with homosexuals. It’s easy to do with women. You can be be quite fond of women, but just not think of them as equals - and, accordingly, you don’t treat them as equals. Painting this as a phobia or hatred is incorrect, and unproductive besides: the people you’re criticizing will think you’re off you’re rocker, and certainly won’t change their ways, and you will block off discussion of what the _actual_ causes of the problem might be. ---
**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 24, 2009, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/109 "2009-11-24T01:27:33Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > No - they were using it correctly but unjustly. There’s a difference. > > Like, if I were to call Steven Hawking a moron, it’s not because I think the word now means “genius”. It’s because I’m insulting him. I don’t understand the difference. If it’s used correctly (i.e. against someone who is opposed to gay rights, as intended by the person who coined the term) how is it unjust to describe him as a homophobe? I don’t get how your Hawking example is relevant, because Hawking is not actually a moron. > [@](#): > > Perhaps it would help if you didn’t misunderstand/misstate my position. I don’t _think_ that I have misstated it, but as I’m increasingly confused as to what your complaint here actually is, it’s entirely possible that I’ve done so. > [@](#): > > Arachnophobia is fear/irrational aversion of spiders. Arachnophobia is _not_ any prejudice or abuse of spiders unless that prejudice or abuse is based in fear/irrational aversion. Agreed - but that’s not the position I ascribed to you. Arachnophobia, properly speaking, is not simply the fear of spiders, but the _irrational_ fear of spiders. Someone one who gets creeped out by spiders is not an arachnophobic. A phobia is a mental illness. It’s something that interferes with a person’s ability to function normally in society. Just being creeped out by something with eight legs is not a phobia. I don’t have an objection to the word being used that way, because I don’t object to the natural flow and evolution of language. But it is a vast broadening of what was originally a very narrow, specific usage. > [@](#): > > Homophobia is fear/irrational aversion of homosexuals. Homophobia is _not_ any prejudice or abuse of homosexuals unless that prejudice or abuse is based in fear/irrational aversion. In this, you are incorrect. Homophobia _is_ the prejudice or abuse of homosexuals. This is at odds with the constructions of the term, which superficially resembles that of arachnophobia, but by your own argument (as well as **Malthus** ’s) was not the original meaning. I _think_ you’re arguing that the original formulation of “homophobe” was unfair because it invoked this parallel, but it doesn’t make sense to complain about people later abusing the term by using it in exactly the sense with which it was originally minted. It’s not an example of language degrading, it’s an example of language maintaining a static meaning. > [@](#): > > Misogyny is hatred of women. Misogyny is _not_ any prejudice or abuse of women unless that prejudice or abuse is based in hatred. And this was the original meaning, but it has since evolved to a wider meaning. Which you object to, on the grounds that meanings should remain static. But that’s at odds with your stances on the two previous terms - one of which, you support the evolved meaning, and one of which, you oppose being used in it’s original, unevolved sense. > [@](#): > > I’m inconsistent about the ‘original meaning’ thing in one way: I do not feel compelled to honor _ancient_ definitions, like greek roots. My baseline is “what I think the word means _now_.” This contrasts with “whatever crazy thing _you_ think the word means now”. Succinctly, I don’t think that misogyny has lost its original meaning, not quite yet - all “wrong” uses of it are deliberately hyperbolic or slanted (like idiot Hawking), or simply wrong. What’s your cut off for “ancient?” And why is it okay for a word to have changed, but not for a word to be changing? ---
**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 24, 2009, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/110 "2009-11-24T01:30:55Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > It’s hard to find an example of nonaversive bigotry with homosexuals. It’s easy to do with women. You can be be quite fond of women, but just not think of them as equals - and, accordingly, you don’t treat them as equals. Painting this as a phobia or hatred is incorrect, and unproductive besides: the people you’re criticizing will think you’re off you’re rocker, and certainly won’t change their ways, and you will block off discussion of what the _actual_ causes of the problem might be. So, to use the example suggested by **Diogenes** , you would not consider the burqa to be misogynistic? ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/111 "2009-11-24T02:39:39Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I think this \*supports \*my position, actually. 🙂 Perhaps I misunderstood your position. It certainly looked to me like you were claiming that the word “homophobia” was coined not merely so there would be a word to describe people who were prejudiced against homosexuals, but with the intent of insultingly suggesting that this was due to fear. You also said that the word suggested that fear or aversion to homosexuals was irrational. I don’t know what those who coined the word “homophobia” had in mind, but my examples showed that the ending “-phobia” can be used to indicate a perfectly rational aversion. If someone were photophobic because they thought they were a vampire and sunlight would kill them then that would be irrational, but the term normally describes an aversion that is the result of painful sensitivity to light. It would be irrational to NOT avoid light if it hurts your eyes. The “penphobia” example was apparently intended to be humorous, but there’s nothing irrational about not wanting to write much if you are by nature a man of few words. Even if “-phobia” _did_ always indicate irrationality, it would be perfectly appropriate in a word used to describe prejudice against homosexuals. Prejudice is, by definition, irrational. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/112 "2009-11-24T02:47:48Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > So, to use the example suggested by **Diogenes** , you would not consider the burqa to be misogynistic? Given that those are often not worn by much of a choice, I dont really see the relevance. Or in other words that particular Dio example sucked. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/113 "2009-11-24T02:53:33Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > “Hatred or dislike” could be quite rational reactions under some circumstances. For example, “I hate and dislike Nazis”. Hatred and dislike is not an _unreasonable or irrational_ reaction to Nazis; it is not a “prejudice”. > > It is to women, and the OED is quite correct to point that out. OK, but to return to the OED cite that started this tangent, it was: _“Hatred or dislike of, or prejudice against women.”_ …and according to you, it’s using prejudice only as an elaboration of what kind of hatred it is :dubious: I think you’re on to a loser with that one. Assuming that the OED quote is completely accurate ('tis not on the web, so I can’t check), your interpretation is too much of a stretch. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/114 "2009-11-24T03:16:33Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > OK, but to return to the OED cite that started this tangent, it was: > > _“Hatred or dislike of, or prejudice against women.”_ > > …and according to you, it’s using prejudice only as an elaboration of what kind of hatred it is :dubious: > > I think you’re on to a loser with that one. Assuming that the OED quote is completely accurate ('tis not on the web, so I can’t check), your interpretation is too much of a stretch. I have access to the OED online through my job, and I can confirm that **Dorothea Book** quoted the definition of “misogyny” correctly down to the punctuation. It is “Hatred or dislike of, or prejudice against women.” She did make a mistake when she said there were citations for the word going back to the seventh century, the earliest cite given is actually from the 17th century. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/115 "2009-11-24T03:53:36Z")
Coincidentally enough, a rerun of _The Office_ that just aired contained the following exchange > [@](#): > > Karen Filippelli: What you’re saying is extremely misogynistic. > Michael Scott: Yes! Thank you. That was not necessary but I appreciate it. And it proves my point; women can do anything. > Karen Filippelli: I’m saying that you’re being sexist. > Michael Scott: No, I’m being misogynistic. That is insane, I’m not being sexist. > Karen Filippelli: That that’s… it’s the same thing. > Phyllis Lapin: Michael? > Michael Scott: Yes. > Phyllis Lapin: When I got my hair cut short you asked me if I was a lesbian. > Michael Scott: Because waaa, that was one possible explanation as to why you got that haircut. > Angela: And when we get mad, you always ask us if we’re on our periods. > Michael Scott: I have to know whether you’re serious or not. ---
**Author:** ![Dorothea\_Book](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dorothea\_Book](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dorothea_Book)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/116 "2009-11-24T13:36:45Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > I have access to the OED online through my job, and I can confirm that **Dorothea Book** quoted the definition of “misogyny” correctly down to the punctuation. It is “Hatred or dislike of, or prejudice against women.” > > She did make a mistake when she said there were citations for the word going back to the seventh century, the earliest cite given is actually from the 17th century. So sorry about that and thanks for the correction, **Lamia**! It was a typo and I didn’t notice it even though I thought I had proofread; one of those tricks of the eye thinking seventh was seventeenth. I didn’t mean to imply that the Anglo-Saxons were running around debating the nuances of misogyny! ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/117 "2009-11-24T14:30:59Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > OK, but to return to the OED cite that started this tangent, it was: > > _“Hatred or dislike of, or prejudice against women.”_ > > …and according to you, it’s using prejudice only as an elaboration of what kind of hatred it is :dubious: > > I think you’re on to a loser with that one. Assuming that the OED quote is completely accurate ('tis not on the web, so I can’t check), your interpretation is too much of a stretch. Naturally enough, I don’t agree. As I have already stated, my argument is not that prejudice is an elaboration of the preceding words (hatred or dislike), but rather that one of the root meanings of prejudice _includes_ the concept of hatred’. As previously quoted, there are two relevant meanings of "prejudice’: > [@](#): > > 2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge and > [@](#): > > c : **an irrational attitude of hostility** directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics [emphasis added] In context it seems to me obvious that the second meaning is meant - that is consistent with the (literally dozens) of other dictionary definitions which state that the meaning of the word is :“hatred of women”. The proposed _extention_ of the meaning, to cover any “preconceived judgment or opinion” regardless of expressed animus against women, strikes me as counter-intuitive in the extreme and lacking in any support. That would mean that it is _correct_ to label “I think women make lousy knitters” by someone who otherwise has _no animus against women_ as “misogynistic”, which is simply contrary to the way in which the word is commony and currently used. ---
**Author:** ![Dorothea\_Book](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dorothea\_Book](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dorothea_Book)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/118 "2009-11-24T14:48:46Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > In context it seems to me obvious that the second meaning is meant - that is consistent with the (literally dozens) of other dictionary definitions which state that the meaning of the word is :“hatred of women”. > > The proposed _extention_ of the meaning, to cover any “preconceived judgment or opinion” regardless of expressed animus against women, strikes me as counter-intuitive in the extreme and lacking in any support. That would mean that it is _correct_ to label “I think women make lousy knitters” by someone who otherwise has _no animus against women_ as “misogynistic”, which is simply contrary to the way in which the word is commony and currently used. It seems obvious to you **Malthus** because you’re determined to dig in your heels on this point. Let’s say that instead of lousy knitters you thought women were lousy drivers. Your prejudice against their ability to operate moving machinery could, if broadly adopted, translate into a case for excluding them from all sorts of activities–including important economic opportunities. For centuries women were thought to have biological features that excluded them from any kind of professional work–like being a lawyer, doctor, or politician. The men and sometimes women who argued for those views did not necessarily dislike or hate women at all. They often thought of these arguments as defenses of women; they believed, for example, that education would make women infertile by diverting blood from the reproductive organs to the brain. But these views were clearly misogynistic since they justified entrenched inequalities and exclusions–including excluding women from the right to vote. I think you’re right that, like many words, misogyny has developed–in this instance from a core focus on hate to a broader focus on positions that undermine women as a group. Prejudice, in other words. Sometimes those prejudices were deeply, deeply rationalized (as in the view that female bodies couldn’t bear the hard study of a professional education or job). The reason the _OED_ better reflects the multiple meaning of the word than the free dictionaries you found is precisely because it’s not free. The _OED_ pays for research to keep up on the changing face of language. (A side note: often the OED’s etymology is useful in this kind of debate since they’ll also track the first time a word was used with a slightly different meaning. But in this instance the OED is not as useful as it should be. The different citations of “misogyny,” from the earliest in the mid-17th-c to the latest in the late 20th c., are impossible to interpret because what they actually mean depends on context and the full context isn’t given.) If I had the time I’m certain I could find other dictionaries picking up on the usage of prejudice–in fact, I already found one that cited “distrust” which is quite similar to prejudice (though I think you entirely ignored that earlier post of mine). ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/119 "2009-11-24T14:49:37Z")
When you provide a label to someone instead of an action, you will be let down every single time. For example, someone could show misogynistic behavior towards one woman and not to another? I think they could. Could this be a case of women getting what they deserve based upon _actions_ instead of basing the “misogyny” on one action (or even multiple actions on one woman) Also, there are and always have been _differences_ between the sexes, why would anybody conclude that they are equal in all aspects? They should be granted equal rights but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are guaranteed equal representation in certain workforces. ---
**Author:** ![Dorothea\_Book](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dorothea\_Book](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dorothea_Book)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/120 "2009-11-24T14:56:43Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Also, there are and always have been _differences_ between the sexes, why would anybody conclude that they are equal in all aspects? They should be granted equal rights but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are guaranteed equal representation in certain workforces. You seem to be responding to a different set of issues here, **Kearsen**. No one here is saying that you need to argue that male and female are identical in all respects in order to avoid misogyny. The word “equal” is a somewhat loaded term that is probably better avoided, or used carefully, in any discussion of sexual difference. For example, men and women have very different reproductive functions. But although women can actually bear children whereas men can not I wouldn’t say that men are reproductively “unequal” which seems misleading and insufficiently specific at once. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597.md?page=7)