On the Definition of Misogyny

[mendel]

I appreciate your concession that there may be some correlation between "sleeps around" and "hates women".

There are some details that bear some examination, though.

1) A man can sleep around with multiple women and not objectify them. I assumed most of the people here would disagree with this point, but it looks like I was wrong.

We wouldn't be reading Tailsteak's webcomic featuring the polyamorous five then, now would we?

2) A man who doesn't view a woman as a human being in her own right, AS INDICATED by a lack of respect for her choices and personhood ("she is only a tool for my pleasure, with no rights or free will,"), shows a hatred of her personhood and therefore a hatred of her as a person.

I feel you're overreaching here. If I don't respect dogs as people, I don't necessarily hate them.
However, if you enter (or pretend to enter) into intimate relationship with somone you don't respect, you know you're going to hurt them. Freud defines hate as an ego state that wishes to destroy the source of its unhappiness (wikipedia), and wilfully hurting others is an expression of that wish. I'm sure Freud would be able to uncover the source of unhappiness in your life that makes you act this way. ;-P

I don't necessarily agree with that, but I would say that, at the very least, the two may be closely correlated. That is, a man who thinks like that may also have the character trait "hatred of women" because A) hatred can be useful to keep a woman in line, and/or B) he may have a history of frustration when women exhibit free will that they "shouldn't" have.

Instead of "he hates women because he sleeps around", it may also be the other way around: he sleeps around because he hates women.

3) Nobody here (including me) seems to know which categories the historic man-sluts would fall under.

Well, that would require actual research, the question seems to be contentious even among those that have done this research if my short digging on google indicates correctly, and it would be skirting the interesting question, which is how Don Juan and Casanova are being conceived as by society (or segments thereof): their significance as sex symbols far exceeds their significance as historical personae.

So we seem to be agreed that promiscuous men are likely to be misogynists, but not necessarily so, and that we don't have the knowledge to decide on whether Don Juan and Casanova actually were. Right?

[Alex Starkiller]

Nope, I just know how this goes. I explain, you misunderstand, I explain again, you misunderstand, lather, rinse and repeat. You've no interest in my actual opinion, you just want a windmill to tilt at.

That's pathetic. In fact, I honestly don't think I actually misunderstood you. I am pretty sure I understand everything you said, I just don't believe it meant what you said. [..]
[And honestly, stop accusing me of being Danish. I don't want any windmills.]

If that was joke, it needed a smiley. If it wasn't, well, then you actually did misunderstood him right there: instead of Danish, you should've said Spanish.

It didn't need a smiley. There is no proper smiley to convey being facetious, or whatever I was being. "Joking" will work if the former does not. Unless you truly mean what the smiley conveys, it needs to be done with a sense of [hipster] irony, and that does not fit here. Though explaining it so thoroughly does fit here, so I went with that instead. [So yeah, I'm not taking this very seriously, don't worry.]
And come on, I can't be expected to make a Don Quixote reference on the fly, regardless of how apropos it may be. And I like the idea of Danish windmills better anyway. Far better ingrained into my subconscious.

[mendel]

Code: Select all

Google hits:
    633 "canadian windmills"
  2,620 "german windmills"
  3,870 "danish windmills"
  5,190 "english windmills"
  9,700 "american windmills"
  9,820 "spanish windmills"
179,000 "dutch windmills"

[Alex Starkiller]

Danish, Dutch, same difference. [So what, I forgot about the differences between places in Europe*. and said Danish instead of Dutch, it's not like people live there or anything.]

*So yeah, now that my memory is jogged, I did mean Dutch earlier, but whatever. Not my fault.

[JustinReilly]

Apropos of nothing, but I thought you were referring to Denmark's electrical grid being almost entirely fueled by wind turbines. But I produce electrons in bulk for a living, so I usually have power plants on the brain.

[Alex Starkiller]

Apropos of nothing

I couldn't figure out what this meant for half a minute. I do now, but still. Off my game. And that's cool. I clean floors.

[crayzz]

I feel you're overreaching here. If I don't respect dogs as people, I don't necessarily hate them.

That analogy fails so hard. Women aren't like dogs; they're actual people.

Freud defines hate as an ego state that wishes to destroy the source of its unhappiness (wikipedia), and wilfully hurting others is an expression of that wish. I'm sure Freud would be able to uncover the source of unhappiness in your life that makes you act this way.

Considering Freud got nearly everything wrong, I wouldn't be referencing him if I were you.

Could someone remind me again why we're taking misogyny to only mean "hatred of"? Yes, I know historically the term means hatred. But "mistrust of", "dislike of" and "contempt for" have been valid definitions for years. Language is mutable.

[mendel]

I feel you're overreaching here. If I don't respect dogs as people, I don't necessarily hate them.

That analogy fails so hard. Women aren't like dogs; they're actual people.

To someone who does not respect women as people, they are not people.

So this is the analogy:
To us, dogs aren't people. : we don't necessarily hate dogs ::
To X, women aren't people. : X doesn't necessarily hate women

The fact that we respect women as people doesn't enter the analogy: if it did, it wouldn't work:
We respect women as people : we don't necessarily hate women
X doesn't respect women as people : X doesn't necessarily hate women
=> NO ANALOGY

You can really insert anything in the first part of the analogy that is not people to you, doesn't have to be dogs. The analogy posits two similarities between women and dogs : 1. some people consider both to be less than human, 2. one can be emotionally attached to them or hate them. The latter is why "dogs" works well in this analogy and "rocks" doesn't. "Spiders" would probably work nicely, too.

We agree that it hurts "actual people" when they interact closely with others who do not respect them. You seem to believe that this is caused by the disrespect alone, but I believe that without sufficient interaction, it doesn't. At the very least, you'd have to know (or have some cause to assume) that you are being disrespected. (Dogs don't actually realize this as long as you treat them well, because they're not people. )

Considering Freud got nearly everything wrong, I wouldn't be referencing him if I were you.

So what should I be referencing? And would it actually matter? Or do you just like to dis Freud?

Could someone remind me again why we're taking misogyny to only mean "hatred of"? Yes, I know historically the term means hatred. But "mistrust of", "dislike of" and "contempt for" have been valid definitions for years. Language is mutable.

Thanks for supporting my point about usages that I made earlier.

[Alex Starkiller]

mendel, in that case it's not really about dissing Freud. He's been widely discredited, so it's not fair to claim criticisms of him are just "dissing" him. To answer your question, from myself, I have no idea. I don't know who might best fit the situation, and as much as I wish I did, I know little about psychology or psychologists. Just enough to know Freud's not the best reference point, and that David Cage is a terrible one in Heavy Rain.

[mendel]

mendel, in that case it's not really about dissing Freud. He's been widely discredited, so it's not fair to claim criticisms of him are just "dissing" him.

Let me explain. If the concept of hate that I should be using is the same or similar to the one Freud used, then the criticism of Freud is pointless re: our argument. If there is no concept of hate I should be using instead, it is even more pointless. The point of criticizing my referencing Freud is then not to advance our argument, so it could be self-serving. Generally speaking, it's a bit of a not-so-serious provocation (the wording I used is all but academic, so I didn't feel it necessary to indicate its facetiousness, though maybe I should have) intended to tickle crayzz into elaborating, which I anticipate being both interesting and helpful to read.

As a working definition, Hate Studies inquires into "the human capacity to define, and then dehumanize or demonize, an ‘other,’ and the processes that inform and give expression to, or can curtail, control, or combat, that capacity." ( http://www.gonzaga.edu/Academics/hate-studies/ )

Definition of Hate
Hate, a complex subject, divides into two general categories: rational and irrational. Unjust acts inspire rational hate. Hatred of a person based on race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin constitutes irrational hate.
Both rational and irrational hate mask personal insecurities. Everyone experiences personal insecurities in varying degrees throughout their lives. The more insecure a person feels, the larger the hate mask. Most people concentrate on the important issues in life, such as earning a living, rearing a family, and achieving personal goals. These pursuits give meaning and value to life. Nonetheless, irrational hate bleeds through day-to-day activities in the form of racial barbs and ethnic humor. Not all insecure people are haters, but all haters are insecure people.
With respect to rational hate, haters do not focus as much on the wrong done to them or others, but, rather, on their own helplessness, guilt, or inability to effect change. The object of rational hate often is despised or pitied. In the same way, irrational hate elevates the hater above the hated. Many insecure people feel a sense of self-worth by relegating a person or group of people to a lower status. ( http://www.rickross.com/reference/hate_ ... ps355.html )

With these definitions, "objectification equals hatred" is even a lot easier to argue, since we get "dehumanize" and "relegate to a lower status".
I don't think they're necessairly better references, though.


Aggression may be easier to define and certainly easier to measure than hate, which is why it's probably somewhat difficult to find definitions - and as crayzz points out, nailing misogyny down to a strict definition of hate may undervalue the usage of misogyny anyway.