Because “hatred” and “dislike” are different concepts with different meanings, would be my guess.
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.
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.
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.
Sure, they are different concepts. But they are complementary in meaning.
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.
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.
The OED says you’re wrong.
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 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.
“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, 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.
Then why did they use “prejudice” to describe misogyny, instead of a word that does necessarily imply antagonism, such as, say, hatred?
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:
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?
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!
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.
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?
My apologies: I misread my own cite.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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”.
Or prejudice, according to the OED.
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?”
I don’t see how that sentence necessarily connotes different shades of meaning between prejudice and misogyny.
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?