# Has the term "misogynistic" lost all of its meaning?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597>\
**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:** 13\
**Page:** 7

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/121 "2009-11-24T16:09:06Z")

</div>

I probably shouldn’t have added that but it seems that the term misogyny has been used too widely to refer to a subset of people when it really needs to refer to a behavior that one may see, because as I said, it may be possible for a person to show misogynistic behavior towards one woman and not another.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/122 "2009-11-24T16:29:56Z")

</div>

> [@Dorothea\_Book](#):
>
> 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).

If I’ve ignored a post of yours, I do apologize; I assure you it was not deliberate.

I do not agree that there is a radical difference between the OED and other dictionaries, and it strikes me as unlikely in the extreme that (say) Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary is somehow simply _old-fasioned_ (just when are you alleging the word acquired this radical new extended meaning?).

The actual _evidence_ provided by your own cite, which you claim is “not as useful as it should be”, merely confirms that there has in point of fact been no radical change in the meaning - none is recorded when, as you state, it ought to have been _had, as you allege, a radical change actually taken place_.

I am not arguing that sexism is not a _bad thing_. My argument is purely linguistic: that the word does not have the “extended” meaning as alleged; that animus against women remains, as always, the core meaning of the word; that one cannot be “misogynistic” without actually hating women; that it is perfectly possible to display a “prejudice” concerning women that is _not_ “misogynistic” (though of course many who display such prejudice _are_ misogynistic).

It seems to me that what you are saying is more about social analysis that language - you are putting forth the proposition that prejudice is very often a way of “undermining women as a whole”, with the intention of entrenching inequalities. That may well be true. I am not arguing with that. It could also be the case that entrenching inequalities is caused by an unreasoning hatred, dislike or distrust of women as a group. Again, no argument from me.

What I’m arguing about is the use of language only. Removing the concept of hatred from the term misogyny makes the word less meaningful as an epithet. The reason the word is used is that it has a sting. Call someone a “misogynist” and it is _supposed_ to hurt - exactly because it means, as most people polled would say, and as the dictionaries all indicate, hatred of women. It is a stronger and harsher term than “sexist”.

Remove the necessity for hatred from the word, and it no longer has that sting.

Of course, what is going on here is what usually happens with anyone wishing to extend the meaning of an epithet - you want the same “sting”, but you want it to apply to a broader range of target. Which is fair enough, but the inevitable downside - should this meaning become commonplace - is the downgrading of the word. So far, the word’s meaning has not been extended generally. I hope that it isn’t, because losing precision of language isn’t a good thing IMO.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/123 "2009-11-24T16:30:47Z")

</div>

> [@Kearsen](#):
>
> I probably shouldn’t have added that but it seems that the term misogyny has been used too widely to refer to a subset of people when it really needs to refer to a behavior that one may see, because as I said, it may be possible for a person to show misogynistic behavior towards one woman and not another.

I don’t disagree that there are people who may be selectively misogynistic but I’m not sure that selectivity is itself any kind of neutralizer of misogyny.

At the risk of stereotyping, here are some kinds of women who often end up bearing the brunt of the misogynistic attitudes and behaviors:

1. older women (past childbearing years)
2. professional women (who have authoritative positions and perhaps don’t go out of their way to look or dress in feminine fashion)
3. sexualized women (sex symbols, exotic dancers, sex workers, centerfolds or women who seem to resemble any of the latter)
4. women deemed unattractive
5. masculine women (women who seem to others to resemble men)

Now one can imagine any number of people (of either sex) who are misogynistic toward only one of toward some subset of the aforementioned “types.” But is the person any less a misogynist?

Now you may say: what if a woman doesn’t fall into any of these types and simply makes another person hate her because, say, she is not a very nice person? Is that misogyny? (On the face of things it doesn’t seem so.) Or what if she does fall into one of these types, but it’s her particular personality that makes some individual really dislike or hate her? Is _that_ misogyny?

Well the answer would need to be that it depends, wouldn’t it? So that maybe we shouldn’t leap to describe any single instance of dislike/hatred/distrust of (a) woman as evidence of misogyny.

FWIW, I’m just fine with the “let’s not leap” argument.

But I’m not sure that it’s the leaping that’s at stake in this thread.

Does anyone disagree?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\
**Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/124 "2009-11-24T16:44:02Z")

</div>

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Does disdain for wimpy, loserly men (think Toby from The Office), or aged frat boys, or other unattractive men mean that you’re a misandrist?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/125 "2009-11-24T17:05:10Z")

</div>

> [@Malthus](#):
>
> If I’ve ignored a post of yours, I do apologize; I assure you it was not deliberate.

Hey, don’t worry **Malthus**. I shouldn’t have used the word “ignore.” I was referring to post #8 which was very breezy and was written before the thread became seriously focused on etymology.

Here’s [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com)’s definition (taken from _Random House_ to which I loosely referred in post #8:

“hatred, dislike, or _mistrust_ of women.” [italics added]

The word is actually mistrust rather than distrust but my point is unchanged: this is roughly similar to what the _OED_ means by prejudice.

> [@](#):
>
> I do not agree that there is a radical difference between the OED and other dictionaries, and it strikes me as unlikely in the extreme that (say) Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary is somehow simply _old-fasioned_ (just when are you alleging the word acquired this radical new extended meaning?).

First, I didn’t say difference between dictionaries was “radical” or that Merriam-Webster is old-fashioned. _OED_ gets libraries to cough up bucks for subscriptions by paying for expert research. (Side note: This doesn’t mean that they’re absolutely perfect. OED is especially bad, fwiw, on the eighteenth century because the OED came into being in the nineteenth century and for whatever reason they will often miss important citations dating back to the eighteenth century–which now, thanks to digitalized data bases, are fairly easy to find. They really should have their researchers go back and add in extra eighteenth-century etymologies)

> [@](#):
>
> The actual _evidence_ provided by your own cite, which you claim is “not as useful as it should be”, merely confirms that there has in point of fact been no radical change in the meaning - none is recorded when, as you state, it ought to have been _had, as you allege, a radical change actually taken place_.

Putting aside “radical change”–which is your wording, not mine–you’re mistaken about what you interpret from the non-usefulness of the etymology in this case. One simply can’t tell what is meant in these citations because they’re pulled out of context: so they may be examples of hatred, or dislike, or prejudice or some combination of the above. One could probably search them quite easily and find out what was the intended meaning. But there’s no need to single out this one set of examples; there are so many others one could draw on to show how the usage of misogyny has developed (expanded might be a good way of putting it) since the late twentieth century.  
Here, for example, is an excerpt from wikipedia’s entry for misogyny:

> [@](#):
>
> Traditional feminist theorists propose many different forms of misogyny. In its most overt expression, a misogynist will openly hate all women simply because they are female.  
> Other forms of misogyny may be less overt. Some misogynists may simply be prejudiced against all women, or may hate women who do not fall into one or more acceptable categories. Subscribers to one model, the mother/whore dichotomy, hold that women can only be “mothers” or “whores.”

**Malthus** again:

> [@](#):
>
> I am not arguing that sexism is not a _bad thing_.

Understood–I think I know exactly where you’re coming from; and, as I’ve said repeatedly, I share your sense that it’s useful to maintain the subtle distinctions between sexism and misogyny (but also useful not to overstate those distinctions, I’d add).

> [@](#):
>
> My argument is purely linguistic: that the word does not have the “extended” meaning as alleged;

Yes, but the word does have the extended meaning–and demonstrably so. And that’s where your position begins to look dogmatic to my mind. You can easily say that the usage has become subject to blurriness and diffusion–the point of the OP in fact. So that you yourself would prefer to model a more conventional or traditional usage that emphasizes hatred and animus as central. Instead you are insisting that the traditional meaning you prefer–and for which you make a reasonable case, I would add, if not one with which I entirely concur–is the \*only \* actual meaning. And there you err…

> [@](#):
>
> …one cannot be “misogynistic” without actually hating women

And yet in my previous post I gave you a number of very good (and very well-known) examples of misogynistic attitudes and behaviors which didn’t stem from hatred of women–which claimed to stem from the desire to protect and honor women. Perhaps you should respond to those examples more directly and explain why they shouldn’t be thought of as misogynistic?

> [@](#):
>
> It seems to me that what you are saying is more about social analysis that language - you are putting forth the proposition that prejudice is very often a way of “undermining women as a whole”, with the intention of entrenching inequalities. That may well be true.

Yes, indeed, which is why writers and commentators on, say, women’s history find it useful to characterize these kinds of deep-seated prejudices which entrench inequality, as misogynistic; likewise they point to these prejudices as part of a wide-ranging and centuries old history of misogyny, broadly understand.

This is, as you say, about language (more specifically etymology) rather than social analysis but then language is itself historical–lives and develops in history. It’s undoubtedly _feminism_ (in its many shapes and forms) that influenced the broadening of the understanding of what misogyny is and what its roots are.

I entirely agree with you that whenever any charged term becomes too broad it risks losing clarity, precision, and poignancy. One has to strike the right balance.

But you can’t simply deny the use of misogyny to describe the kind of prejudicial attitudes I’ve referred to even if you yourself would prefer a different term and prefer the traditional meaning of misogyny.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Pray\_for\_peace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Pray\_for\_peace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pray_for_peace)\
**Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/126 "2009-11-24T17:19:45Z")

</div>

> [@athelas](#):
>
> What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Does disdain for wimpy, loserly men (think Toby from The Office), or aged frat boys, or other unattractive men mean that you’re a misandrist?

Asking what behaviors or emotions constitute misandry is an interesting question. In my experience, the term “misandry” is not used often (in fact I think I have only ever encountered it in print, not in speech), although the concept/emotion conveyed by “misandry” is captured to some extent by the term “man-hater,” which is used fairly frequently.

If I may rephrase your question, I would ask whether a woman who despises (“disdain” is too weak, IMO) wimpy, loserly men, but is neutral towards or approving of other men, would be considered a man-hater. I think the answer to this question is no. In my experience, the term “man-hater” is reserved for women who have a generalized hatred of men, presumably stemming from some painful experience of rejection. Hatred of _only_ a specific kind of men (assuming that such “kinds” exist), or only unattractive men, would not be sufficient to label someone a “man-hater.” Do you agree?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/127 "2009-11-24T17:45:31Z")

</div>

**Sidney** , Why limit discussion of disdain for “wimpy” men to women? Other men (including even other wimpy men) surely constitute the greater part of those who disdain wimpiness among men.

I think what you’re discussing here isn’t clearly “misandry” and certainly isn’t purely to do with women’s feelings about particular kinds of men.

What you’re discussing are the norms of masculinity: which are very harsh and limiting and prejudicial to human variety.

One of the reasons you don’t get much mileage out of a term like “misandry” is that you don’t need to hate men as a group, or to be prejudiced in some explicit way against men as a group, in order to privilege the norm of masculine strength. All you have to do is buy in to the idea that the best men are (say) physically strong, economically successful, politically powerful, competitive, emotionally controlled, etc.

Ah, one might say: isn’t the prejudice against wimpy men prevalent enough to be called “misandrist”–because it undermines men as a group (by making them submit to norms)? But then undermines them as a group in comparison to whom? As a group men are substantially more socially and economically empowered than women and they even tend to be slightly happier according to some recent studies.

So I think what you’re really pointing to is that it often feels really shitty to be forced to live up the norms of masculinity even though men are the socio-economically dominant group.

Which, paradoxically, provides one of the many reasons why some men find some outlet or compensation or defense in misogynistic attitudes and behaviors.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 24, 2009, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/128 "2009-11-24T17:52:50Z")

</div>

> [@Dorothea\_Book](#):
>
> At the risk of stereotyping, here are some kinds of women who often end up bearing the brunt of the misogynistic attitudes and behaviors:
> 
> 1. older women (past childbearing years)
> 2. professional women (who have authoritative positions and perhaps don’t go out of their way to look or dress in feminine fashion)
> 3. sexualized women (sex symbols, exotic dancers, sex workers, centerfolds or women who seem to resemble any of the latter)
> 4. women deemed unattractive
> 5. masculine women (women who seem to others to resemble men)
> 
> Now one can imagine any number of people (of either sex) who are misogynistic toward only one of toward some subset of the aforementioned “types.” But is the person any less a misogynist?

Attractive women (who are not necessary sexualized) also belong on this list. While they aren’t dismissed the same way as older women or unattractive women, they are often pigeon-holed as a Whore or a Madonna.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/129 "2009-11-24T18:26:17Z")

</div>

> [@Miller](#):
>
> 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.

You don’t know what the person who coined the term intented - stop making stuff up.

> [@Miller](#):
>
> Agreed - but that’s not the position I ascribed to you.

Maybe y’all shouldn’t be ascribing positions to me then.

> [@Miller](#):
>
> In this, you are incorrect. Homophobia _is_ the prejudice or abuse of homosexuals.

You can assert this all all day, but it’s not going to get any more convincing. You’re still wrong.

But you know what? I don’t _care_ that you’re wrong anymore. I don’t even care enough to even bother arguing it further. This (and the spider business) is just a hijack based on a throwaway comment I made, and since it’s not relevent to this thread and I’ve lost interest in bashing against your brick wall, I’m not going to discuss -phobia words in this thread anymore.

So you may claim “victory” in this if you like.

> [@Miller](#):
>
> 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 object to it on the grounds that it has _not_ evolved to a wider meaning. Not yet. You are jumping the gun.

Sure, some people don’t know what the word means and misuse it. That’s a shame. But word’s don’t lose their meanings the instant some fool misuses them. The misuse has to _take over_ and _supplant_ the prior usage. And seriously, it hasn’t done this with “misogyny” yet. People still know that it’s a different word from predjudice, with a harsher meaning. That’s why they misuse it that way! It’s an insult! Duh!

> [@Miller](#):
>
> 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?

My cutoff for “ancient”, in the context of this discussion, is “has the change completely taken over yet or not”. And the reason it’s “okay” is because it’s silly to argue a lost battle, but quite sensible to reject the idea that words _lack_ fixed meanings entirely.

> [@Miller](#):
>
> So, to use the example suggested by **Diogenes** , you would not consider the burqa to be misogynistic?

Actually as it happens I already answered this:

> [@begbert2](#):
>
> In my opinion, it depends on why they’re doing it, and in most cases, in my opinion, it’s probably not due to hating the women, so in that case it’s not misgynistic. Others will diagree, though.
> 
> Trying to paint all bigotry as hatred is neither accurate or useful, in my opinion.

> [@Lamia](#):
>
> 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.

I was arguing against **Miller** who was either arguing that -phobia words only refer to extreme cases of the aversion - that or he was trying to strawman me into that position, I’m not really sure which. But either way, I’m done discussing -phobia words in this thread.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Pray\_for\_peace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Pray\_for\_peace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pray_for_peace)\
**Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/130 "2009-11-24T21:27:27Z")

</div>

> [@Dorothea\_Book](#):
>
> **Sidney** , Why limit discussion of disdain for “wimpy” men to women? Other men (including even other wimpy men) surely constitute the greater part of those who disdain wimpiness among men.
> 
> I think what you’re discussing here isn’t clearly “misandry” and certainly isn’t purely to do with women’s feelings about particular kinds of men.
> 
> What you’re discussing are the norms of masculinity: which are very harsh and limiting and prejudicial to human variety.
> 
> One of the reasons you don’t get much mileage out of a term like “misandry” is that you don’t need to hate men as a group, or to be prejudiced in some explicit way against men as a group, in order to privilege the norm of masculine strength. All you have to do is buy in to the idea that the best men are (say) physically strong, economically successful, politically powerful, competitive, emotionally controlled, etc.
> 
> Ah, one might say: isn’t the prejudice against wimpy men prevalent enough to be called “misandrist”–because it undermines men as a group (by making them submit to norms)? But then undermines them as a group in comparison to whom? As a group men are substantially more socially and economically empowered than women and they even tend to be slightly happier according to some recent studies.
> 
> So I think what you’re really pointing to is that it often feels really shitty to be forced to live up the norms of masculinity even though men are the socio-economically dominant group.
> 
> Which, paradoxically, provides one of the many reasons why some men find some outlet or compensation or defense in misogynistic attitudes and behaviors.

I think you may have misunderstood my post. Based on my understanding of the term “misandry,” I would say that the term applies to instances of disdain for all men as a group. As I understand it, a misandrist statement would be something like “men think with their penises first and their brains second.”

Wimpy men were singled out as a group by **athelas**. Again, based on my understanding of the term “misandrist,” disdain of wimpy men isn’t misandrist because the disdained group is too narrow, and it’s irrelevant whether the disdain is expressed by women, men, wimpy men, or all of the above. Similarly, disdain of rich good looking men (or any other group that embodies the norm of masculine strength) is not misandrist because the disdained group is too narrow.

Edit: My previous post did limit misandric statements to women, but that limitation is not necessary (as you pointed out).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/131 "2009-11-24T21:42:38Z")

</div>

> [@Sidney Evgeni Jordan](#):
>
> I think you may have misunderstood my post…  
> Wimpy men were singled out as a group by **athelas**.

Possibly I did misunderstand you though I think it’s more the case that I didn’t make clear, as I should have done, that I was responding both to you and **athelas** at once.

You did write, in response to **athelas** ,

> [@](#):
>
> If I may rephrase your question, I would ask whether a woman who despises (“disdain” is too weak, IMO) wimpy, loserly men, but is neutral towards or approving of other men, would be considered a man-hater.

To clarify: I know that you thought **athelas** ’s example was too narrow a category for misandry and that you drew your example of the hypothetical woman from **athelas** as well.

But in reply–as much to **athelas** as to you (and sorry I didn’t make that clearer)–I wanted to emphasize a number of underlying problems in considering “misandry” including a) the problem of only focusing only on women’s attitudes to men; b) the problem of considering disdain for the wimpy as distinct from all men (a similar but not identical point to yours); as well as, most important of all, c) the problem of looking for misandry by implicit analogy to misogyny which, for a number reasons, won’t hold up.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\
**Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/132 "2009-11-25T02:26:22Z")

</div>

> [@Dorothea\_Book](#):
>
> 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.

Don’t worry, I figured that was what happened. But since I was being pedantic anyway I wanted to make sure everyone was clear on exactly what the OED said. 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 25, 2009, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597/133 "2009-11-25T15:46:52Z")

</div>

> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#):
>
> Attractive women (who are not necessary sexualized) also belong on this list. While they aren’t dismissed the same way as older women or unattractive women, they are often pigeon-holed as a Whore or a Madonna.

Yes, I see what you mean. One can be attractive and not fall into the sexualized category. Thanks.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-term-misogynistic-lost-all-of-its-meaning/518597.md?page=6)