Conscious hatred is not a necessary element. Controlling and paternalistic attitudes are misogynistic as well. The Taliban will tell you that they don’t hate women, but that they revere and elevate them. Yeah, right.
Twilight IS a misogynist piece of shit, by the way.
Incidntally, getting too hung up on the literal roots of the word is like when people think that “homophobic” has to imply literal fear of homosexuals. “Misogyny” entails any feeling that women are inferior to, or should be subject to the control and authority of men.
Exactly. Treating women as some sort of other species, whether you think we’re delicate flowers to be revered, or silly little things that need to be protected, is misogynistic.
I’ve heard plenty of guys claim they “love women”, but that doesn’t preclude them from thinking women are stupid, silly, not as smart or as independent as men.
It doesn’t need to be hate to be misogynistic - or misandristic, for that matter. If I think men are incapable of running a home, or wouldn’t trust any man to watch kids, then that’s misandrist, because I’m saying men are inherently not capable of these things.
While I do think misogynistic is used a lot here sexist would be just as adequate, I also think there’s a disconnect between hatred and how people express it. If everyone who hated women made their views known and spat at them on the street or tried to beat them on a first date, they’d be vile and avoided but at least they’d be easy to define. But even people who consider women less than human (often because their gods told them to), albeit amusing and attractive, seem to harbor some resentment for being led into temptation and sin. So while they may claim girls and women are there to serve and no better than dogs walking around on their hind legs – but of little consequence compared to real humans, boys and men – I think there is some very real fear and hatred there, too. Even if they never beat them, or let them take a few classes to make them better companions, or claim they must dress and act a certain way to ‘protect’ them.
For those unfamiliar, Tucker Max is a self described “asshole”, former Duke Law student, restauranteer’s son and the author of the book I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell. The book is essentially a collection of drunken “frat guy” stories and annecdotes about Tucker and his close friends getting drunk, hooking up with girls and otherwise getting into juvenile trouble. Argent Towers, to answer your question, “misogynist” means a hatred or dismissisve attitude towards women. You don’t have to litterally say “I fucking hate women, they’re all a bunch of useless cunts, and their only purpose in life is for me to fuck them. I have no respect for women and I consider them to be scum.” It is nearly as misogynistic to behave in a manner that treats women as if you feel this way. While Tucker Max does not say “I hate women”, he frequently calls them “sluts” and consistantly behaves as if he believes women have no purpose other than as sexual conquests with little regard towards their feelings.
I have known a fair number of real-life Tucker Maxs and they do seem to share a few common traits. They are often highly intelligent (you don’t go to Duke Law by being a dummy and many of the friends in his story are Ivy League alum). They tend to come from affluent families. And probably most importantly, they were screwed over by a girl (or girls) they dated at an early age (like high school age). So what typically happens is that they have this attitude of distrust and contempt for all women as cheating sluts. There interaction with women is typically to hook up with as many of them as they can which just reinforces their negative opinion of them. This is a form of misogyny.
For all intents and purposes they are the same thing.
So, unless you subscribe to the dogma of no differences between men and women, you’re a misogynist? Or is there some wiggle room for Right-Thinking People?
More specifically, I’m saying that hatred is not a necessarily an element in the attitude of men who treat women as their inferiors. I’m not certain whether it’s a necessary element of the definition of “misogyny”.
But IME plenty of people that throw the M word around believe it.
Just in the same way that towing anything other than the party line about any regarding race gets you labeled racists with a capital R.
Folks who are quick to use the M word and the R word and the other R word and the S word too at the drop of a hat to describe something that might, if you really really stretch it only do their side a big disservice. They dilute the meaning of the word and make many of us more reasonabl folks think :rolleyes:
Yeah, like sure, but what is the “party line”? What’s the “drop of a hat”? And what’s the “something that might, if you really really stretch it only do their side a big disservice” (which sounds especially mysterious).
What you’ve articulated is an abstract thesis–under certain circumstances charges of sexism/misogyny/racism can be false and therefore counterproductive–that any reasonable person would agree can apply. But what’s the case you have in mind?
My grandmother, who grew up in an era prior to the advent of modern Feminism in the '60s, used to say of someone: “he was a real woman-hater”. Living as an adult from the 20s on, she lived through many eras in which sexism was considered reasonable and established; when she said someone was a “real woman-hater”, it meant more that that they simply thought women inferior to men, or infantilized them in some manner, since such was common and mostly accepted. To my mind, that’s what “misogynist” basically means - a man (or in some cases even a women) who hates women as a group, and individual women for being women.
Someone who thinks men are superior to women, that women are fundamentally infantile, etc. may, but is not necessarily, a person who hates women.
Extend the meaning of the one to cover the other, and we’ll have no word to indicate what my grandmother meant when she said “so-and-so was a real woman-hater”. Yet there are still people fitting that description. Society has changed and sexism is now less accepted, but some people continue to hate women, and it is useful to have a word that specifically means that.
I’m not so sure. I caught a few minutes of a bond film on TV recently (sorry, I’m not sure which one). He basically wrestled a woman to the floor, was on top of her, and she resisted his first couple of attempts to kiss her. But finally she stopped “pretending”.
S’mooooth!
I see your point here Malthus and, as I said earlier, I agree that it’s important to maintain the distinction between sexism and misogyny.
But I wouldn’t want to go as far as you suggest and reserve misogyny as word that applies only to a sub-set of sexists who actively express hatred for women. The thing is that both sexism and misogyny have become much more subtle now that sexism is no longer as acceptable in mainstream society as it once was (despite much that lingers) and misogyny (in the sense of overt hatred) is less tolerated.
People who put women on a pedestal may be sexist rather than misogynistic. But in practice women are often resented for this preferential treatment even while they are undermined by it (professionally, for example). So it’s actually really hard to disentangle the animus from the other kinds of differential norms and practices that continue to harm women as a group (and are generally bad for men as well).
I actually think it’s important to emphasize the last point: misogyny is as bad for most men as it is for women.
As for a word just for women-haters, I think your grandmother had a good one
