Lesbians in Denial? 
Stop you are making me questioning my own sexuality …Hang on, is it homophobic to dislike this feeling? It’s just so confusing: I thought I knew what these words meant!
You know there is this Chinese idiom, 画蛇添足; it means “Adding feet to a drawing of a snake”.
Ok, no link. But isn’t applying, or not applying, the term based on a broad general description by a third party, the kind of over-use and over-generalization you seem unhappy about?
IMO no.
I am asking when the M term is appropriate or not.
If its a generalization that is actually true to some percentile value, but most women dont like to admit that fact, is that still M ?
If you are not familiar with the series, it would take too long to explain in detail here. Needless to say it was a guy who fitted the M definition easily. Of course he hated everyone else and himself so who knows. As an aside, if you have never seen the series it is REALLY damn good. Imagine Shakespeare with a mouth that would make the Devil blush.
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.
One job I do, part-time, is working for a company that coaches guys on dating and seduction.
Often it’s obvious why some of the guys are single – they are projecting a certain bitterness and resentment towards women. They may describe women as irrational and cruel and don’t realise that they are projecting similar characteristics themselves.
I’d raise you this kind of misogyny any day – bitterness about past rejections projected on to all women.
Of course, a similar misandry is common among women.
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.
e.g.
Women are welcome at more places, it can seem (especially a group of women versus a group of men). And there are events/classes/resources specifically for women, explicitly excluding men in a way that would raise eyebrows were the genders reversed. And, say, a woman who appears to need help is more likely to get it than a man.
Feelings like this are common, and can grow to be the basis of another kind of misogyny.
If the OED is using “prejudice” to be synonymous with “hatred,” why does it also list “hatred” as part of the definition? And why would they say “hatred… or prejudice,” instead of “hatred and prejudice?” Doesn’t that “or” indicate pretty strongly that “prejudice” is presented as an alternative meaning to “hatred,” and not a complimentary meaning?
I think I just stumbled across that thread – about a lab tech? The post in question (I think) – it seems pretty strangely paranoid. I hadn’t really given it much thought, but I guess is is possible for a woman to be misogynistic – unless there’s some other term for it.
What’s the term for some of those closeted gay legislators or ministers who champion discrimination against gays? Are they homophobic, or does some other word apply?
Not to agree with the OED, but or means or. According to it, misogyny has acquired the definition that if you think that women are hotter than men, and are thus prejudiced towards them, then that’s mysogyny.
Of course, I think that the OED is just bending to common usage. There are clearly people around here who think that if you whistle at women, you’re a mysogynist, because you’re clearly sexist, despite the fact that it’s only gained this usage because “sexist” isn’t a pejorative enough word for some people.
Myself, I choose to just say that the OED is jumping the gun, and the meaning of the word hasn’t been totally corrupted by word inflation, not quite yet.
“Hypocrite.”
In my opinion to be a homophobe, you have to actually be afraid of or instinctively repelled by homosexuals. If you are opposed to them for some other reason, then you are a bigot, but not a homophobe. Though I suspect that most bigots against homosexuals are afraid of them to some degree as well - including those closeted self-hating types you mention.
I am not convinced that most people who are bigoted against women hate them, though. It’s quite easily to be quite comfortable with women in general, and only be afraid of ‘anomalous’ women - women who are challenging the social order and rocking the bigot’s little world by not wanting to act or be treated like the bigot thinks women should act and be treated. This is bigotry, but in my opinion it’s not mysogony, because the women are not hated, and women as a class are not hated. The word has a meaning, dangit!
Except for the authoritative English dictionary.
I don’t really understand why people insist on this definition, because it really limits the utility of the word, and makes it harder to communicate a much more common concept. The number of people who are “clinically” homophobic, in that they posses an actual phobia in regards to homosexuals, is pretty small. The number of people who are prejudiced against homosexuals, on the other hand, is much larger. The only term we have to describe these people is “homophobia,” and that’s the way it’s been for some thirty or so years now. If we restricted the definition of the term the way you advocate, we would have no word to describe a phenomenon that’s far more common and socially relevant, and therefore, far more in need of an easy identifier than a relatively rare psychological condition.
You’ve confused “not having a meaning” with “not having the meaning I want it to have.”
No one has answered my question about whether forcing women to wear burkas is misogynist, by the way?
Not to get too psychoanalytical, I think if you really dig, you will find fear in most if not all homophobes, if only fear of the unknown. I think the same could be said of women, this idea that they’re the Other, the animal that heads to the hut and bleeds for 7 days a month and doesn’t die, that does secret things in the women’s washroom. In the case of the closeted gay homophobe and the misogynist man, they seem to hate these people for what they bring out in themselves, including lust or attraction that may make them feel powerless – to the point where, as Mijin describes, they even convince themselves that gay people or women are a prized, dominating class.
What if you are part of a religion with Fall of Man-type myth in which a woman can be blamed for pretty much all the evils in the world? Even if you don’t hate women on a personal level, and only want to protect them from hurting themselves, like children, what if that myth is fundamental to your education and your life?
Now’s as good a time as any to recommend Jack Holland’s Misogyny: The World’s Oldest Prejudice (I think it was recommended to me by a Doper – thanks!). Very witty and readable, and I see there are copies for as little as $4.72!
Why does it list “Hatred or dislike”? Is “hatred” alternative in meaning to “dislike”, or complementary?
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.
They are not burkas, they actually ARE bee keeper suits. The bees are very dangerous!
Which (a) was not presented by you and (b) doesn’t support your position.
How about “bigot.”
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.)
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.
No. I’m denying that it’s meaning has really changed, outside of hyperbolic usage. Sure, it’s on it’s way to doing so, but I’m hanging on to the days when the word had a useful meaning with all my fingernails, dangit!
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.
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.
(a) is irrelevant, and (b) is flatly false.
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 same goes for “anti-Semitism”, which has nothing whatever to do with being against “semites” - it was coined for the express purpose of denoting Jew-hatred alone.
Contrast with “misogyny”, which has for literally hundreds of years meant “hatred of women”. It was not a word invented in the 1960s as a euphemism for “sexism”, and it is no good pretending it was.