Edit: In no way is this an excuse for misogyny! Humans are flexible creatures and the differences in attitudes towards women cross-culturally is evidence that we can change our behavior to a great degree by social learning.

I think culture also plays a role, encouraging certain practices and attitudes over others. In cultures where men are ascribed power and control, misogyny might be more common since women threaten that possession of power. Just think of how male attitudes have changed in the last hundred years as women have entered the workforce. There’s more emphasis and concern over what men vs women’s roles should be and a huge stress on masculinity and its expression. Where we had poets and guys in tights we now have cowboys.

We must make the distinction here between passing laws and conventions and living with laws and conventions. The former clearly is done with a willful intent to prosecute. While occasionally there may be economic or other practical incentive behind such an action – hypothetically – most times I think we can put this to an expression of hate, scorn, or whateveryouhave similar.

On the other hand, the latter is usually no more thought through than driving on the right side of the street. Furthermore, breaking it can make one an outcast and following it usually serves one’s advantage. So, while its upkeep is usually not hatefully motivated, it survives through appeal to self interest.

At times, when a scapegoat is needed, the oppressed party may fall pray to convenience, and then, yes, hatred can be observed as present and relevant. However, those are individual happenings and should not be made into generalization. Likewise, when hatred is part of the cultural stereotype, hatred can be confidently said to be present behind derogatory action.

What I want to stress, though, is that social inequality should not be mistook for hatred. In pre-WWII Germany, for example, anti-Semitism was an active phenomenon. It was talked about by the people as a fact in itself, often stirring a great deal of passion. This I contrast with the attitude toward women in modern Western culture. Political correctness today leans toward quite the opposite.
nine pearls wrote:
Oh, you can’t honestly be stretching this so far that you’re more willing to state that a computer is a person, than to admit that viewing people as objects is pathological at best, and sociopathic at worst?

Many people have faith in what they’re told to be proper. I shouldn’t have to give you examples of convenient faith.

Alright, then, I still think it’s hateful, but we’ll go with your theory. When a culture passes willfully oppresssive laws applying only to a certain group, what emotion motivates it?

jaoman wrote:
Not unless it is motivated by hate. To solve any problem one must first get to the root. Treating another human being as a “thing” could be triggered toward feeling powerful, for example. Completely unexceptable though it is, the motive doesn’t amount to hate. Likewise, it could be done purely because of convention. Some people argue that computers are a simplistic intelligence, yet I choose to view it as a thing because its convenient and that is how things are done. Again not a hateful act. And along that line of thought, one may simply avoid the moral confusion by not considering, purposefully, the implications of one’s beliefs and actions. We do it all the time about everything. And while yet again it doesn’t excuse it, hate yet again cannot be found at the source of the oppression involved.

Oh, you can’t honestly be stretching this so far that you’re more willing to state that a computer is a person, than to admit that viewing people as objects is pathological at best, and sociopathic at worst?

jaoman wrote:
I don’t have a clue. My guess would be as a relic from earlier times. It would be interesting to find out what effect this law has on modern precedent, and if it actually causes anyone but yourself major grief.

It was actually on a TV show I saw recently, which is why it came to mind.

Gee, I would’ve thought the context of my statements made it dead obvious that I was speaking of Western culture in the present. So, newsflash: I’M SPEAKING ABOUT WESTERN CULTURE IN THE PRESENT DAY!!!

Yes, everything you say has and does happen in different parts of the world. However, with the exception of rape and gang bangs, I’m pretty sure that its pretty rare down here. Now, talking about what’s going on over there is an issue and a relevant issue, but there is a chasm of cultural differences between there and here, and if you want to talk about there, please make it plain so we can switch gears and not crash into the ludicrous misunderstandings that end with name calling. (And in so far as rape and gang bangs – rape gang bangs, not porn – , all I can say is the well known fact that women cut off the flow of blood to many men’s brains, and need to learn judo to compensate. I don’t have a clue how to overcome instinctive stupidity except through better security.)
nine pearls wrote:
This is totally irrelevant, because choosing a standard side of the road to drive on isn’t going to put one group of drives in the control of another.

Not unless they’re British tourists.
nine pearls wrote:
I think this is where we are getting tripped up. Yes, you can hate an individual. But, a hateful act can be directed at a total stranger–gay bashing, lynching, rape, etc. Do you see?

Yes, I agree with you about that. And in the fuller view of the world, there’s certainly plenty of hate and discrimination against women. There’s also plenty of hate and discrimination against just about everyone else, but anyway….

Look at your examples of hateful acts. In all cases we have a person intentionally committing a violation on another person. Gay bashing, lynching, rape, all of these are done with the understanding of infringement involved. However, if I wasn’t thinking about infringement when I wrote “women’s place” before but was merely in a rush and choosing the first appropriate phrase coming to mind, is that still a hateful act? Even though it’s done without any malice or wrongful intent whatsoever? It’s not a proper occurrence, I’ll grant you, it’s something that must be applied more care to and should be changed toward future usage, I’ll grant that too, but does the perpetration of that act, innocently ingrained as it is, necessarily make me hateful or make it hateful? I say no. I can’t see how an act that doesn’t have malice behind it can be an act of hate, since hate, as ever, is a motivating emotion.
nine pearls wrote:
And, to you thinking of another human being as “thing” isn’t an hateful act?

Not unless it is motivated by hate. To solve any problem one must first get to the root. Treating another human being as a “thing” could be triggered toward feeling powerful, for example. Completely unexceptable though it is, the motive doesn’t amount to hate. Likewise, it could be done purely because of convention. Some people argue that computers are a simplistic intelligence, yet I choose to view it as a thing because its convenient and that is how things are done. Again not a hateful act. And along that line of thought, one may simply avoid the moral confusion by not considering, purposefully, the implications of one’s beliefs and actions. We do it all the time about everything. And while yet again it doesn’t excuse it, hate yet again cannot be found at the source of the oppression involved.
nine pearls wrote:
I’ve got a long list of examples up at the top of the list. I don’t know much about Canadian laws, honestly. I’ll pull a current one up from American law, though. In this country a man can get a vasectomy without his wife’s knowledge. It is illegal, however, in many states, for a woman to get a tubal ligation without her husband’s consent. Why do you suppose that disparity exists?

I don’t have a clue. My guess would be as a relic from earlier times. It would be interesting to find out what effect this law has on modern precedent, and if it actually causes anyone but yourself major grief.

It wasn’t sarcastic. Most women in the world are still living under very brutal misogyny. So, acting as if misogyny is some relic from the past is to speak from a very privileged position.

jaoman wrote:
Of course. That is what we’re talking about here. However, you seem to have already decided that these are the primary product of hatred. Personally, I had no opinion on the issue before coming into this thread. If you can prove your point, I’m willing to be convinced; however, from where I sit now, it doesn’t seem plausible.

So, genital mutilation, rape, gang bangs, objectification, intimidation, denial of basic humanity, the suttee, death by stoning for exposed hair, denial of rights to education and medical care and transport, denial of rights to own property, etc, are the products of what? You seem to be saying that “these simply are things men do to differentiate themselves from women.” I say that’s rediculous. I’ll agree that our fashion choices are meant to play up our differences. But, our laws throughout the ages? Those are absolutely intentionally created to establish and reinforce oprression.

jaoman wrote:
Yet, nonetheless, the act distinguishes you from the British. Hate?

This is totally irrelevant, because choosing a standard side of the road to drive on isn’t going to put one group of drives in the control of another.

jaoman wrote:
This is true. Hatred is driving emotion. It makes us do things we do not normally do. It is also characteristic of a certain state of mind. Do you disagree? If so, how do you define hatred? And why?

I think this is where we are getting tripped up. Yes, you can hate an individual. But, a hateful act can be directed at a total stranger–gay bashing, lynching, rape, etc. Do you see?

jaoman wrote:
Could be both. Could be neither. Think about the British butler archetype. Generation after generation totally devoted to their master in exchange for livelihood. A symbiosis, of sorts – there’s no reason why you would hate anybody who adorned you with that kind of devotion. Or more primitive: Roman slavery. Here we come back to my computer analogy. Romans paid for their slaves. You don’t pay for something you feel negatively toward. You don’t necessarily think of it as “human” but you don’t hate it either.

And, to you thinking of another human being as “thing” isn’t an hateful act?

jaoman wrote:
Yes. We create propaganda to excuse our bigotries. However, be that as it may, I’ve never heard of women planning to start WWWIII here in Canada. If you bring this up, show what myth is played out to excuse subjugation of women. And for the love Jove, tell me what subjugation you’re talking about. The way you speak sounds like a catastrophe, but you don’t bring any examples of anything so horrible being done. Society is not fair, I’ll grant you. It’s not fair to income groups and its not always fair to women. However, you seem to be saying that it tries specifically to be unfair to women and that needs evidence.

I’ve got a long list of examples up at the top of the list. I don’t know much about Canadian laws, honestly. I’ll pull a current one up from American law, though. In this country a man can get a vasectomy without his wife’s knowledge. It is illegal, however, in many states, for a woman to get a tubal ligation without her husband’s consent. Why do you suppose that disparity exists?

If the point of this thread isn’t to bicker please don’t switch contexts in the middle of the program. I said progress has been made. You made a sarcastic remark about where. I answered that by posting location and evidence. In response to which, you accuse me of bickering. Are we to discuss social trends or to wiggle oneupmanships?
nine pearls wrote:
As for these assumptions being deeply rooted, I thought that was the question–why are they so deeply rooted? What is at the heart of it all?

Of course. That is what we’re talking about here. However, you seem to have already decided that these are the primary product of hatred. Personally, I had no opinion on the issue before coming into this thread. If you can prove your point, I’m willing to be convinced; however, from where I sit now, it doesn’t seem plausible.
nine pearls wrote:
I drive on the right side of the street for my own safety.

Yet, nonetheless, the act distinguishes you from the British. Hate?
nine pearls wrote:
You seem to have pigeonholed “hateful” behavior as something that can only happen when you’ve got a hatred of something specific, for personal reasons.

This is true. Hatred is driving emotion. It makes us do things we do not normally do. It is also characteristic of a certain state of mind. Do you disagree? If so, how do you define hatred? And why?
nine pearls wrote:
Do you suppose that masters hate or loved the slaves they owned?

Could be both. Could be neither. Think about the British butler archetype. Generation after generation totally devoted to their master in exchange for livelihood. A symbiosis, of sorts – there’s no reason why you would hate anybody who adorned you with that kind of devotion. Or more primitive: Roman slavery. Here we come back to my computer analogy. Romans paid for their slaves. You don’t pay for something you feel negatively toward. You don’t necessarily think of it as “human” but you don’t hate it either.
nine pearls wrote:
New or not, to what degree has the notion of ownership faded? And, where and in what ways does the ownership mentality still exist? We attribute terrible things to the people we do harm to (Iraqis harbor terrorists, Jews ate babies, Native Americans worshipped the devil, Celts sacrificed humans, and women caused men to fall from divine Grace), and is that attribution brought on by unacknowledged guilt or something else? Do we mentally turn others into stereotypical vessels of the things we despise to excuse ourselves from that same willingness to despise another human for the sketchiest of reasons?

Yes. We create propaganda to excuse our bigotries. However, be that as it may, I’ve never heard of women planning to start WWWIII here in Canada. If you bring this up, show what myth is played out to excuse subjugation of women. And for the love Jove, tell me what subjugation you’re talking about. The way you speak sounds like a catastrophe, but you don’t bring any examples of anything so horrible being done. Society is not fair, I’ll grant you. It’s not fair to income groups and its not always fair to women. However, you seem to be saying that it tries specifically to be unfair to women and that needs evidence.

Western society, why not. Here’s the first paragraph from Wikipedia’s article on the Women’s Movement – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_movement – I’d very much like to know how it’s inaccurate:

Whoever wrote the article seems confused about what Third Wave feminism actually is.

As for why not Western society, I guess I’m confused. Misogyny exists now, and it existed 1000 years ago. It exists in developed countries and in third world countries. I guess I just thought the question was broader, and more about the wider reasoning for misogyny. I didn’t realize the point of the thread was to bicker about feminism.
jaoman wrote:
And speaking of Tobias, he made a very good point to you about everything we have being built on previous accomplishments. Our ideas, our concepts, our rituals, and even our language all can trace deep lineages into oppression times. It’s so rooted into us, we don’t even notice much of it most of the time. Little quirks, mostly – like my reference to “women’s place” in post 19. Now, that’s a pretty loaded statement. It makes certain assumptions that are, all considered, not particularly agreeable to women – I think you’ll agree. In fact, I’d been half expecting you to call me on it.
jaoman wrote:
Excuses, excuses…

More like postponed, but hey, it’s the first, so I can pester you full time again . I didn’t call you out, for the same reasons I didn’t launch into a “All of these reasons for misogyny are misogynist!” attack on anyone in the thread. Of course a lot of the reasons for misogyny are misogynst. It would be stupid for me to expect otherwise. Particularly on this board. As for these assumptions being deeply rooted, I thought that was the question–why are they so deeply rooted? What is at the heart of it all?
jaoman wrote:
It’s not impossible. Though, if that is the case, the above doesn’t help me to find my way to enlightenment. Tell me, do you intentionally differential yourself from the British when you drive on the right side of the street? Or is that just an unwitting side-effect of following convention? The former seems kind of odd, whilst the latter is another instance of the phenomenon.

I drive on the right side of the street for my own safety. You seem to have pigeonholed “hateful” behavior as something that can only happen when you’ve got a hatred of something specific, for personal reasons.
jaoman wrote:
A) I don’t hate my computer either. Besides, romance was invented in the medieval period.

It’s fantastic that you don’t hate your computer. Do you suppose that masters hate or loved the slaves they owned?
jaoman wrote:
B) New or not, it’s still the world we find ourselves living in. It’s newness doesn’t impact the psychology required to deal with its characteristics.

New or not, to what degree has the notion of ownership faded? And, where and in what ways does the ownership mentality still exist? We attribute terrible things to the people we do harm to (Iraqis harbor terrorists, Jews ate babies, Native Americans worshipped the devil, Celts sacrificed humans, and women caused men to fall from divine Grace), and is that attribution brought on by unacknowledged guilt or something else? Do we mentally turn others into stereotypical vessels of the things we despise to excuse ourselves from that same willingness to despise another human for the sketchiest of reasons?

Or, is it that you don’t care about exploring “Why misogyny?” You just want to argue with me?

Western society, why not. Here’s the first paragraph from Wikipedia’s article on the Women’s Movement – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_movement – I’d very much like to know how it’s inaccurate:
Wikipedia wrote:
The Feminist Movement has effected many changes in Western society, including women’s suffrage; broad employment for women at more equitable wages (“equal pay for equal work”); the right to initiate divorce proceedings and “no fault” divorce; the right of women to control their own bodies and medical decisions, including obtaining contraceptives and safe abortions; and many others. Some feminists would argue that there is still much to be done on these fronts, while third wave feminists would disagree and claim that the battle has basically “been won”. As Western society has become increasingly accepting of feminist principles, some of these are no longer seen as specifically feminist, because they have been adopted by all or most people. Some beliefs that were radical for their time are now mainstream political thought. Almost no one in Western societies today questions the right of women to vote, choose her own marital partner if any, or to own land, concepts that seemed quite strange only 100 years ago.

nine pearls wrote:
I’ve been short of time the last few days… end of the month, having a job, all that.

Excuses, excuses…
nine pearls wrote:
You either have a funny definition of hatred, or a bizarre idea of how women were viewed in the past… one or the other.

It’s not impossible. Though, if that is the case, the above doesn’t help me to find my way to enlightenment. Tell me, do you intentionally differential yourself from the British when you drive on the right side of the street? Or is that just an unwitting side-effect of following convention? The former seems kind of odd, whilst the latter is another instance of the phenomenon.
nine pearls wrote:
Not when women are viewed mostly as property, which has historically been the case. Marrying for love is pretty new in the grand scheme of things.

A) I don’t hate my computer either. Besides, romance was invented in the medieval period.

B) New or not, it’s still the world we find ourselves living in. It’s newness doesn’t impact the psychology required to deal with its characteristics.

Where? In the US? In Europe? Or, in Afghanistan? In Tchad? Just saying…
jaoman wrote:
And speaking of Tobias, he made a very good point to you about everything we have being built on previous accomplishments. Our ideas, our concepts, our rituals, and even our language all can trace deep lineages into oppression times. It’s so rooted into us, we don’t even notice much of it most of the time. Little quirks, mostly – like my reference to “women’s place” in post 19. Now, that’s a pretty loaded statement. It makes certain assumptions that are, all considered, not particularly agreeable to women – I think you’ll agree. In fact, I’d been half expecting you to call me on it.

I’ve been short of time the last few days… end of the month, having a job, all that.
jaoman wrote:
However, while it may be a loaded statement, I still cannot imagine, off the top of my head, a different phrasing that would convey the same meaning. I suppose I could rephrase it to something like “women’s dominion” and still maintain most of the meaning, but some historical power of reference and concept attached to the statement would be lost, and more importantly it takes concentration. Now imagine several hundred thousand similar conventions, all of which have been conspired to appeal to an unequal culture. You don’t need hatred to employ them, you just need enough laziness not to consider the issue. Ignorance or neutrality are more than plenty adequate here.

You either have a funny definition of hatred, or a bizarre idea of how women were viewed in the past… one or the other.

jaoman wrote:
Finally, mass hatred of women is inconvenient. All over the world, guys are trying to attract mates in an ever more demanding market. Any kind of willful hatred toward women, for the most part, would seriously affect that endeavour.

Not when women are viewed mostly as property, which has historically been the case. Marrying for love is pretty new in the grand scheme of things.

And I agree with that. I have no doubt that the instigators of the oppression were particularly hateful. But we have a different dynamic today. We’re not going into oppression – we’ve spent the last 100 years dragging ourselves out. Equal rights and equal possibilities, at least, supposedly. Now that doesn’t sound like the fruits of hatred.

And speaking of Tobias, he made a very good point to you about everything we have being built on previous accomplishments. Our ideas, our concepts, our rituals, and even our language all can trace deep lineages into oppression times. It’s so rooted into us, we don’t even notice much of it most of the time. Little quirks, mostly – like my reference to “women’s place” in post 19. Now, that’s a pretty loaded statement. It makes certain assumptions that are, all considered, not particularly agreeable to women – I think you’ll agree. In fact, I’d been half expecting you to call me on it. However, while it may be a loaded statement, I still cannot imagine, off the top of my head, a different phrasing that would convey the same meaning. I suppose I could rephrase it to something like “women’s dominion” and still maintain most of the meaning, but some historical power of reference and concept attached to the statement would be lost, and more importantly it takes concentration. Now imagine several hundred thousand similar conventions, all of which have been conspired to appeal to an unequal culture. You don’t need hatred to employ them, you just need enough laziness not to consider the issue. Ignorance or neutrality are more than plenty adequate here.

Finally, mass hatred of women is inconvenient. All over the world, guys are trying to attract mates in an ever more demanding market. Any kind of willful hatred toward women, for the most part, would seriously affect that endeavour.