Misogyny

March 23, 2007 at 11:04 am (bizzare, feminism, sociology)

I think that we can all agree that the cultural phenomena of misogyny exists. At worst, one could explain it by saying that “women are generally evil and some people understand that they deserve to be scorned”. I don’t have much background in the subject beyond personal anecdotal observations, but from these I would hypothesise that misogyny occurs largely as an inverse function of sexual vulnerability in men. The sexual drive is one of the more powerful attitude shaping drives that men have. Someone made reference in another thread to how difficult it is to rehabilitate a man with a mental disorder that has been enforced by orgasm. For this reason, heterosexual men are in a sense, ‘at the mercy’ of women. It is in a person’s interest to fear and attempt to regulate or control critical and unpredictable elements of their environment. The more women are viewed as foreign, the more unpredictable they appear, the more impetus there is to fear them and attempt to control them. Through a more inclusive view of gender (we’re all different people, but we’re all pretty similar too), don’t we limit the fear, hate, and desire for power that characterise misogyny?

Any alternate theories and/or appropriate empirical data would be welcome.

Advertisements

44 Comments

  1. nine pearls said,

    First, it’s spelled misogyny. Like, gynocologist. Suffix is -gyn. It’s easier to remember that way.

    Second, I’ve always assumed it’s a reaction to “Why do girl have the babies?” Men are dissappointed that they don’t have the babies or the initial mother-bonding, and in reaction want to control everything else.

  2. Aestheticist said,

    People might think women aren’t rational enough to study philosophy. Empirical data shows women are usually less rational than men. However, there is no concrete evidence to prove it though.

  3. floyd said,

    soniarott wrote:
    I would hypothesise that misogyny occurs largely as an inverse function of sexual vulnerability in men…

    Regardless of if it is the root cause or not, this definitely is a huge factor of misogyny.
    Generally speaking, I think men are more prone to have (varying levels of) inferiority complexes. I think this accounts not only for their ambitious conquering and controlling nature, but also for the abundance of sadistic brutality and posturing.
    nine pearls wrote:
    Second, I’ve always assumed it’s a reaction to “Why do girl have the babies?” Men are dissappointed that they don’t have the babies or the initial mother-bonding, and in reaction want to control everything else.

    I don’t agree with this explanation. The birth process isn’t usually considered to be a great reward.
    Aestheticist wrote:
    People might think women aren’t rational enough to study philosophy. Empirical data shows women are usually less rational than men. However, there is no concrete evidence to prove it though.

    I do believe that generally men are on average more logical and women are more emotional. However, this hardly justifies misogyny. Also, the classic “male” attempt to suppress or ignore emotions can be quite irrational depending on circumstances. The difference between left-brain and right-brain or masculine and feminine (or any other similarly simple distinction) thinking methods is a difference in style not rationality. In fact, the most rational method of thinking is probably a balanced one. Bluntly, I don’t believe, even generally, that men are any more rational then women at all.

  4. discoveryi said,

    First, let us define misogyny as the hatred of women. This has its roots from several different sources, but in my opinion, I think that what contributes to misogyny most is personal experience.

    The statement ‘most men are more logical and most women are more emotional’ needs to be elaborated.

    Why are most men more logical and most women more emotional? Does this have a genetic basis? Or is it based on stereotypes?

    What are the roots of misogyny? Is it because women are hard to understand? Or is it simply because the certain misogynists failed in certain relationships because of female irrationality or refusal to submit to them according to the their whim?

    Now, when we talk of hatred, we need to understand what hatred actually is and what causes hatred. First we must define and clarifty a few things:

    1. What is hatred?

    2. What causes hatred?

    3. Why do we hate?

    In the end, to conclude the reasons behind misogyny, we must answer the following:

    1. Why do we hate women?

    2. What is misogyny?

    3. Why misogyny?

    4. Is misogyny justified based on the premises formulated from answering the above questions, or are there certain portions of misogyny justified and some not?

  5. ugx2000 said,

    Soniarott wrote:
    I think that we can all agree that the cultural phenomena of misogyny exists. At worst, one could explain it by saying that “women are generally evil and some people understand that they deserve to be scorned”.

    By cultural phenomena you mean a mob mentality? That there are men gathering together stirring up bad feelings toward all women?

    If you are not talking about mob mentality then we are discussing individuals.

    You can only judge individuals on an individuals basis.
    Anyone judging someone else in any generic fashion has a problem.
    So a man saying all woman are bad and treat them accordingly fit into the above category.

    There are objective ways of measuring a persons character.
    If a man meets a woman that is bad and chooses to interact with her for that reason would suggest a problem.
    Should that same man meet a good woman and treat her as though she is bad would suggest a problem.

    Control vs. Trading

    Control issues are what they are regardless of the particular situation.
    Trading value for value is the only rational course.
    Soniarott wrote:
    Why are most men more logical and most women more emotional? Does this have a genetic basis? Or is it based on stereotypes?

    Social conditioning.

  6. soniarott said,

    ugx2000 wrote:
    By cultural phenomena you mean a mob mentality?

    I don’t know. What do you mean to imply with ‘mob mentality’? Maybe we mean the same thing, but I wouldn’t choose those words, as they are more loaded with negative implications and I want to approach this with as little bias as possible.
    That there are men gathering together stirring up bad feelings toward all women?

    That would be an oversimplification of a the cultural phenomena, but a somewhat accurate oversimplification.
    If you are not talking about mob mentality then we are discussing individuals.

    Which clearly I wasn’t. I was speaking of social trends and speaking of men and women in general, as it applied to this topic. On an individual level, I don’t worry about whether someone is specifically a misogynist, I just determine if they are an asshole (which would likely include most or all mysogynists).
    Social conditioning.

    You misattributed this question to me. I don’t believe that men are more rational and women are more emotional. My experience is that both genders are emotional and very few people of either gender is particularly rational most of the time. On this forum, I would judge that statistically women are more rational than men, but there is not much of a range to judge. If there were scientific studies, I would like to see the data involved before I reached a judgement like that.

  7. Aestheticist said,

    ugx2000 wrote:
    Social conditioning.

    What do you mean by “social conditioning”? Can you extend your point?

  8. jaoman said,

    While it may not be the sole reason or the only one, I think there’s something to be said for the relationships different men have with their mothers. We all shape our understanding of other people on our parents. A man whose mother was too lenient and let him get away with indecencies that another would’ve stood up to would perhaps be more inclined to overlook the importance of women. On the other hand, a man whose mother was too strict or distant would perhaps grow up with some insecurities about the feminine that could bloom into misogyny with time.

  9. nine pearls said,

    Floyd wrote:
    I don’t agree with this explanation. The birth process isn’t usually considered to be a great reward.

    I didn’t say they’re jealous of the pain of labour.

    Choice quotes from Euripides
    A Women! This coin which men find counterfeit!
    Why, why, Lord Zeus, did you put them in the world,
    in the light of the sun? If you were so determined
    to breed the race of men, the source of it
    should not have been women.

    Men might have dedicated in you own temple images of gold,
    silver, or weight of bronze and thus have bought the seed of progeny,
    to each been given his worth in sons according to the assessment
    of his gift’s value. So we might have lived in houses free of the taint of women’s presence.

  10. floyd said,

    Soniarott wrote:
    You misattributed this question to me. I don’t believe that men are more rational and women are more emotional. My experience is that both genders are emotional and very few people of either gender is particularly rational most of the time. On this forum, I would judge that statistically women are more rational than men, but there is not much of a range to judge. If there were scientific studies, I would like to see the data involved before I reached a judgement like that.

    Certainly, you believe men and women have differing brain chemistry and that they think differently, right?

    I think our language developed much faster then our understanding of neurology and non-conditional psychology. Thus, simple words such as ‘rational’, ‘logical’, and ’emotional’ fail to accurately reflect the general differences between male brain neurology and hormonal chemistry and female brain neurology and hormonal chemistry.

    Here’s an article about gender differences in the brain.

    A better way to simply describe the differences in thinking method then I used before is, IMO, that women use emotions, personal experience, and practicality in their thinking better then men who use a more disconnected analytical and objective thinking style. For this reason I believe men are generally better at solving well defined objective problems while women are better at dealing with real-life issues. This could be why women are less prone to philosophy while men are less prone to social relating.

    This is all of course a generalization. Used as an absolute truth, it would be fallacious.

    Personally, I like women more then men. And, misogyny is clearly un-masculine. (Women are supposed to hate other women, not men.) I’d imagine misogyny often stems from some various sorts of pathology or complex.

  11. caldwell said,

    soniarott wrote:
    I don’t have much background in the subject beyond personal anecdotal observations, but from these I would hypothesise that misogyny occurs largely as an inverse function of sexual vulnerability in men.

    Sonia, you might be interested in reading this book, Self-Made Man by Norah Vincent. I haven’t read it, but I watched her interview on tv about the book and it was pretty insightful. The things you say are pretty much what she tried to explain. From listening to her talk about her journey into the men’s world (including the retreat where misogynists gathered monthly to shout profanities and obscenities even against their wives), I felt compassion, not anger or fear, for men who hated women. It seems like all roads lead to sexuality and intimacy.

  12. petunia said,

    Floyd wrote:

    Certainly, you believe men and women have differing brain chemistry and that they think differently, right?

    I think our language developed much faster then our understanding of neurology and non-conditional psychology. Thus, simple words such as ‘rational’, ‘logical’, and ’emotional’ fail to accurately reflect the general differences between male brain neurology and hormonal chemistry and female brain neurology and hormonal chemistry.
    There are developmental differences measured between male and female in the use of language and expression. This could be a difference in brain chemistry, or early social conditioning. Men being more logical and women more emotional is difficult to measure, although it is true that men are present in higher numbers in careers that require logical problem solving like the sciences and engineering. Culturally, emotions that are associated with vulnerability are acceptable for women and emotions that express dominance are acceptable for men. Neither extremes are especially rational. Men can be extremely moody just as women, but often express it to other men as dominance, so it is disguised. Brawls and fanatical excitement at sporting events are generously accepted, but is not what I understand as logical. Also, men feelings of hurt from women are not often expressed in a logical manner. Guys who experience maternal rejection often have distorted reasoning in relationships. Men who have been habitually rejected by women often formulate irrational framework to explain this pattern. Spousal and child abuse is deeply irrational, and yet more often perpetrated by men. And yet, men are also drawn to logical analysis for the mere sake of it far more often than women. So, I do not present any conclusion, but a few observations.

  13. petunia said,

    Caldwell wrote:
    I felt compassion, not anger or fear, for men who hated women.

    For other readers I would suggest feeling cautious compassion. I know of a man whose mother mistreated him badly, ended up marrying a beautiful, gentle woman, and treated her cruelly. He was intelligent and understood the dynamic behind his behavior, but chose the satisfaction of personal rage and dominance. While I pity his early suffering, his choice to create far more pain than he ever experienced has also earned my contempt. It helps to see it play out in real life. It is worth facing the entire truth of suffering.

    When a person encounters cruelty caused by suffering, our compassion may grow like a mighty oak for those who have suffered. As we see the cruelty feed and grow senselessly, our rage may grow alongside. We can reach a point that one cannot be uprooted without uprooting the other. Compassion cannot always be felt without rage. To stop feeling anger can require that we stop caring altogether. It is the great irony of suffering.

  14. ugx2000 said,

    Soniarott wrote:
    I don’t know. What do you mean to imply with ‘mob mentality’? Maybe we mean the same thing, but I wouldn’t choose those words, as they are more loaded with negative implications and I want to approach this with as little bias as possible.

    I do have issues with people who do not think things thru for themselves, and simply go along with a trend. It is an open opportunity for disaster.

    Soniarott wrote:
    Which clearly I wasn’t. I was speaking of social trends and speaking of men and women in general, as it applied to this topic. On an individual level, I don’t worry about whether someone is specifically a misogynist, I just determine if they are an asshole (which would likely include most or all misogynists).

    LOL I can only agree with this statement

    Soniarott wrote:
    You misattributed this question to me. I don’t believe that men are more rational and women are more emotional. My experience is that both genders are emotional and very few people of either gender is particularly rational most of the time.

    I apologize for the false attribution of the statement.

    As to the rest. I concur 100%
    Aestheticist wrote:

    What do you mean by “social conditioning”? Can you extend your point?

    Petunia covers it well.

  15. nine pearls said,

    ugx2000 wrote:
    You can only judge individuals on an individuals basis.
    Anyone judging someone else in any generic fashion has a problem.
    So a man saying all woman are bad and treat them accordingly fit into the above category.

    Several of you seem stuck on the individual, while completely ignoring the system.

    Saying that you can’t speculate on a explanation because you can’t read everyone’s individual minds is a cop out.

    I do agree with a lot of the reasons listed above concerning why an individual might be a misogynistic. But most of you seem unwilling to touch on why systematic cultural misogyny exists, aside from some token theories on biological determinism.

    The fact is that “women are more emotional” isn’t a reason for “hating women en masse.” Particularly given that reason funtioning as a virtue has a fairly sketchy history to begin with–humans do and have valued all sorts of other attributes above reason, like obedience and honor, for example.

  16. jaoman said,

    nine pearls wrote:
    Several of you seem stuck on the individual, while completely ignoring the system.

    Saying that you can’t speculate on a explanation because you can’t read everyone’s individual minds is a cop out.

    I do agree with a lot of the reasons listed above concerning why an individual might be a misogynistic. But most of you seem unwilling to touch on why systematic cultural misogyny exists, aside from some token theories on biological determinism.

    The fact is that “women are more emotional” isn’t a reason for “hating women en masse.” Particularly given that reason funtioning as a virtue has a fairly sketchy history to begin with–humans do and have valued all sorts of other attributes above reason, like obedience and honor, for example.

    Alright. I suppose many of the inequalities lingering can be slated to the weight of history. With the introduction of equal rights, a woman’s “place” in the world, in so far as men are concerned, has been garbaged. Yet it is still an active perception. It continues to circulate through the mother image and through historic dispositions. Women haven’t had an adequate chance to contribute equally, and as a result we mostly hear of great men. This does set up a trend of perception.

    Another factor that perhaps should perhaps be considered is that while the feminist movement has decanted man’s place for woman, woman’s place for woman doesn’t seem as well established. At least from where I sit. On some level, I feel social pressure to treat woman as I would a man – but this is unfair, because, as a man, I have a completely different perception and reaction to women than to men. Thus, the issue becomes overthought, second guessing ensues, and inequalities are unavoidable. It may be the case that woman’s “place” needs to evolve again from similarity with men to equality.

    But how do you see the issue, nine pearls? I’m just flipping it with my answer. You’re obviously from a far better position to make commentary. Can you give specific examples of the kinds of things your talking about? What sources do you attribute it too and how would you solve it?

  17. caldwell said,

    Petunia wrote:
    For other readers I would suggest feeling cautious compassion. I know of a man whose mother mistreated him badly, ended up marrying a beautiful, gentle woman, and treated her cruelly. He was intelligent and understood the dynamic behind his behavior, but chose the satisfaction of personal rage and dominance. While I pity his early suffering, his choice to create far more pain than he ever experienced has also earned my contempt. It helps to see it play out in real life. It is worth facing the entire truth of suffering.

    Petunia, I agree very much with what you say. I suppose what I meant when I said compassion is, it moves me to try to understand how this behavior comes about, and with that understanding comes the mentality that these men really do need some type of intervention. I think, very often, our first and only reaction is to shun them and see them as monsters, and that’s where it ends. So, the cycle continues. I think just like anyone trying to get out of addiction or compulsion, they do need the people around them to help them as well.

  18. floyd said,

    Petunia wrote:
    There are developmental differences measured between male and female in the use of language and expression. This could be a difference in brain chemistry, or early social conditioning. Men being more logical and women more emotional is difficult to measure, although it is true that men are present in higher numbers in careers that require logical problem solving like the sciences and engineering. Culturally, emotions that are associated with vulnerability are acceptable for women and emotions that express dominance are acceptable for men. Neither extremes are especially rational. Men can be extremely moody just as women, but often express it to other men as dominance, so it is disguised. Brawls and fanatical excitement at sporting events are generously accepted, but is not what I understand as logical. Also, men feelings of hurt from women are not often expressed in a logical manner. Guys who experience maternal rejection often have distorted reasoning in relationships. Men who have been habitually rejected by women often formulate irrational framework to explain this pattern. Spousal and child abuse is deeply irrational, and yet more often perpetrated by men. And yet, men are also drawn to logical analysis for the mere sake of it far more often than women. So, I do not present any conclusion, but a few observations.

    I think I didn’t express myself accurately. When I said our language developed slower, I meant as a society. So, I don’t think the word rational can be used to describe the difference between female and male thinking methodology (biological or conditioned). I think men are generally better or more inclined to abstract impersonal analysis, and taking into account objective facts. I think women are generally better at personal and practical application, and taking into account emotions and desires. If I was to say one was more rational, I’d say women are more rational then men, because their thinking methodology is more realistically and practically effective.

    I agree that conditioning plays a major role in the differences between men and women in contemporary society. Like most things, (I believe,) it is a mix of both nature and nurture.

    I also have noticed the male tendency to cope with emotional and interpersonal problems foolishly.

  19. nosos said,

    We live in a society dominated by men and characterised by virtues and traits which are taken to be male. Therefore those virtues and traits which are taken to be characteristically female are suitably denigrated because they run contrary to masculine standards. Equally this value judgement is generalised into females as a whole, being as they are the characteristic possessors of female virtues and traits. So patriarchy causes misogyny.

    Am I being overly-reductive?

  20. rabeldin said,

    discoveryii wrote:
    First, let us define misogyny as the hatred of women. This has its roots from several different sources, but in my opinion, I think that what contributes to misogyny most is personal experience.

    No, not hatred, fear! We know that women can and do manipulate us in many ways. That is the point of the Adam and Eve tale. Men can always be seduced by a woman. It is a rare man indeed who can seduce many women. That is why it is every man’s daydream to be that man!

  21. discoveryi said,

    Yes. Men do get hatred and fear mixed, especially when it comes to women.

  22. wintour said,

    Misogyny is not part of ancient history the way it is in modern times. While some women may consider their oppression to be misogynistic when we look at it with today’s eyes, we know that historically it was not the case. Men didn’t oppress women because they hated them, they did it for many other reasons. Guaranteed genetic heredity, feeling like they were in power, a strong sex drive, a need to nurture and care for something, and many others. Men wanted to have something weaker than themselves to take care of, and that had nothing to do with hating women but more about having a companion who was well taken care of. Women have babies and people get pets for much the same reason. Not because they hate babies and animals but out of a need to care for something. I am not saying that men didn’t beat their wives or treat them poorly, as that is a seperate issue of man feeling inferior to all things. The same man who would kick his dog and his children, would probably also beat his wife. It has nothing to do with the wife, except that she is convient. And as we know from our studies of domestic abuse, it’s always very little about the victim and almost always some kind of pathology that is corrupt in the attacker.

    More recently, in the last 300+ years ago we’ve seen a growing increase in misogyny and violence towards women. Part of this is caused by women asserting that they do not need to be cared for, and have a will of their own they want to live by. It’s not that women before that time didn’t feel that way, just that they seemed to know their place and accept it. We no longer accept that binding, and when we started to reject it, the troubles began. Suddenly, men who knew their place in the world and only had to fight with 50% of the population to hold to that position had the whole world to contend with. Feminists, in my opinion, exacerbate the problem by constantly shoving their superiority in mens faces. Their comments are rarely uplifting women, but more ball-breaking and negative comments about how bad men are. This does no good, and only makes them look bad as they don’t seem to understand females at all, and take their personal crusade of feeling inferior into the global realm by blaming men for everything in a very hostile and combative way. This increases the amount of misogyny in the world, and does nothing to help it. A softer hand, one that has compassion and understanding of both sides is much more helpful as a whole. What feminists don’t seem to “get” is that history does not change overnight, and people’s opinion is harder to change than anything else. It’s a slow and painful process, but the best you can do is set a good example for others and work from there, not be busy trying to kick peoples teeth in.

    I am a chemist. The only female chemist in my company at the moment. I graduated Summa Cum Laude from Rutgers University in New Brunswick, with a M.S. in Organic Chemistry in the top 2% of my class. When I came here, I was met with all sorts of doubt as to my ability because I’m a female. I had to prove every step of the way, with careful research, planning and completed projects that I was every bit as good as my male counterparts. I didn’t do that by feeling like I was fighting against the male vs. female dynamic even though that was the case, I looked at it from a new employee vs. established employee standpoint because it was easier for me to see it from that way. I wasn’t trying to prove I was better, only that I was worthy of the respect and praise I receive on a regular basis now. I didn’t get here by beating skulls, but by respecting others and giving them the benefit of the doubt.

    It must be hard for men, in this day and age to know what to expect out of a woman. It’s probably pretty scary to approach them, and to engage them in any kind of conversation knowing that one has to walk on eggshells as to not to offend. In my opinion, some women are way too sensitive to things that are not mean to oppress or demean. Men want to be able to talk to women as they talk to men, but a lot of women make this much more dificult by putting up that barrier of irrational emotion based on perceived gender inequality. Does that mean I think we are equal now? No. But what it means is that we don’t have to be superior and we don’t have to fight our way up and make the situation worse. We can live our lives as a good example of a respectable, rational, intelligent, independant woman without having to wear combat boots and spout obscenities at men who might not deserve it. I don’t have a problem with men, but I don’t automatically assume they are going to be biased against me. That helps me a lot.

    It’s still a man’s world, as we are still mostly being judged by male standards. Female politicians are judged on their male predeccessors and counterparts. Women are considered inferior to men in science and math because they’re judged against the male, when we’ve started to find that women aren’t worse than men, they just figure a problem a different way. As women find their way in this world, I think that the misogyny will increase to a point but then subside when we start showing the world that we need to be judged on a human standard and not a male standard. I don’t think it will happen in my lifetime, but it will happen. The gender “wars” are only making things more bitter, and if we’d stop fighting and begin to work together to change things then it will go a lot smoother.

  23. discoveryi said,

    Wiontour wrote:
    It must be hard for men, in this day and age to know what to expect out of a woman.

    When it comes to quality of work, I would probably not expect anything from anyone based on their gender, but rather from the professional point of view as to what is good and what is bad. I am part of the new generation. I am seventeen. You have a lot to expect from my generation in terms of social mentality when it comes to women. More and more, we do not judge women based on them being a women, but rather based on their ability.

    I don’t know if I will end up liking this or not. I am praying that the day that wearing g-strings and lipstick as a fashion and a jesture of gender equality never comes. Apart from that, we are all equal in terms of being a human. This includes both intellectually and physically. However, one could argue that the female body, genetically, is weaker than that of the male’s. This is, sometimes, the basis of certain male mentalities when it comes to female ability to do things. The foolish male mixes this (physiology) with intellectual efficiency, of which I would say we are, more or less, rather equal. There have been studies based on IQ tests and Standardized Testing that have shown that the average female would score higher on the test than a male. However, I will leave that to personal judgement as to whether males or females are more intellectual.

  24. wintour said,

    Women’s bodies are genetically different from men. It’s foolish to ignore this factor when hiring a lumberjack or a brick layer who is required to lift heavy objects repeatedly. It’s not that the woman wouldn’t be able to, it’s just that over time she would have more injuries and have depleted bone loss because of it. That could lead to higher insurance rates for the company and higher workman’s comp. So is it fair of us to expect that we should treat everyone equally no matter what? I don’t think so. I don’t like ideas of “equal opportunity” and “affirmative action” in this day and age. We’ve gotten to a point where the legislation is both outdated, and not-needed. The longer we have these things in effect, and don’t judge people on ability, skill and personality, the longer it will take for us ever to see each other as equal.

  25. wuliheron said,

    Soniarott wrote:
    Any alternate theories and/or appropriate empirical data would be welcome.

    The record number of children born to a single male is thought to be somewhere around 450. If women are raised to believe they must obey men because they are inferior, it supports the ability of a single male to reproduce as often as possible. A similar phenomenon has been observed among birds, who were thought to be among the most monogamous of animals.

    Male birds with poor genes would work hard to stake out the best territory and build a nest. Females would then mate with them, but surrupticiously also mate with other males with healthier genes. In fact, the males with healthy genes who mated less frequently were still more likely to impregnate the female.

    Thus, both behavior and genes determine our ability to reproduce. Women are attracted to men with healthier genes. At the same time, rape is also a common way to reproduce among humans.

  26. nine pearls said,

    jaoman wrote:
    Alright. I suppose many of the inequalities lingering can be slated to the weight of history. With the introduction of equal rights, a woman’s “place” in the world, in so far as men are concerned, has been garbaged. Yet it is still an active perception. It continues to circulate through the mother image and through historic dispositions. Women haven’t had an adequate chance to contribute equally, and as a result we mostly hear of great men. This does set up a trend of perception.

    That’s what I’m talking out! Much better! I just wanted to see what folks thought about systematic misogyny, as opposed to a bunch of “I knew this guy…” stories.
    jaoman wrote:
    But how do you see the issue, nine pearls? I’m just flipping it with my answer. You’re obviously from a far better position to make commentary. Can you give specific examples of the kinds of things your talking about? What sources do you attribute it too and how would you solve it?

    I think it’s a bunch of things, and as I already mentioned, I think that there is a certain unending irritation that men have that they were born of women.

    I do think that you and wuliheron and nosos brought up excellent points, too.

    And, a question about rabeldin’s Eden example, when Adam decided to eat the apple, he wasn’t really capable of being seduced, yet, was he? He hadn’t eaten the fruit, and nakedess didn’t really have the “seducing” effect, did it? Honestly, what I get out of that story isn’t “seduction.” It’s just that Adam was kind of a dumbass ๐Ÿ˜‰

  27. floyd said,

    Wintour wrote:
    Women’s bodies are genetically different from men. It’s foolish to ignore this factor when hiring a lumberjack or a brick layer who is required to lift heavy objects repeatedly.

    No, it would be foolish to base the hiring on gender. It would be wise to base the hiring process on the ability to lift heavy objects repeatedly. Granted, it might work out that the most qualified is usually or always a man (for such a job). However, the decision still isn’t based on gender; it?s based on lifting ability.

    For example, when I was roofer, obviously all my co-workers were men. We weren’t hired because we were male. We were hired because we displayed the qualities of a good roofer (which isn’t gender). It happens that the people who have the qualities of a good roofer tend to be male, but my employer still technically would be classified as an EOE.

  28. wintour said,

    I whole heartedly disagree. The physiology of a woman is different from that of a man. They may be able to do the work, but will have a much greater chance of developing minor and major injuries than that of their male counterparts. Women have a much higer prevelance of repetative motion injuries, not because they do the type of work that is more prone to causing it but because their bodies are built differently than men. Women in certain sports retire earlier because of the physiological differences, and there is no reason for a company to leave itself open to those kinds of problems.

    Roofing is another great example, actually. Can women train to endure the hot summers and lift heavy objects? Yes. But there are factors and traits involved in the work that do not make it suited for a woman. And we would be remiss in encouraging someone down that path knowing that it could cause her pain and suffering because of her physiology, and it would cause her employer hardship to have to pay for her injuries that were caused by her different body and not by the actual work.

    Not all hiring should be gender based, but certain fields should have gender considerations. Doing otherwise isn’t good for either party.

  29. floyd said,

    No. Potential hirers should be judged on the way they can perform the functions of the job without getting hurt, not by gender. Having a vagina or a penis does not make one more able to roof well without injury. Indeed, most of the people who roof well without injury happen to have a penis. However, they are not chosen based on such. If an employer judges a potential hiree based on their gender instead of their ability to do the functions of the job, then that employer is foolish.

    You’ll notice that there is nothing inherent in the definition of male/female that links it to something inherent to roofing.

    I?m not saying a roofing or lumberjack company should hire women. I?m saying that they should hire employees based solely on their ability to do the job well without injury. Gender is irrelevant.

  30. wintour said,

    We are going to have to agree to disagree. From my science studies I have learned that when it comes to physical activity, men and women are different. So different in fact that even if someone CAN do something, it doesn’t mean they SHOULD do those things. Causing harm to your body, by not recognizing those limitations is… stupid really and an employer that allows you to is likewise moronic.

    http://www.genderphysiology.org/

    We are different in many many ways, and that is why there are entire schools dedicated to studying it. That is also why there should be limitations, to prevent people from being stupid and pushing their limitations. A lot of jobs even require you to get cleared by a doctor to perform them, and if you have a limiting factor, you should be prevented from doing that job. All people should really have a physical before doing major physical labor to ensure that they are not injured and my taxes don’t keep going up because of them. We really have enough stupid people bogging down our tax system through welfare, disability and other such things. When we can prevent people from doing that, it’s probably a better idea than making sure we meet our EOE quotas.

  31. jaoman said,

    nine pearls wrote:
    That’s what I’m talking out! Much better! I just wanted to see what folks thought about systematic misogyny, as opposed to a bunch of “I knew this guy…” stories.

    If that’s really it, then you’re using bad language. Misogyny, defined as the willful hatred of women, doesn’t apply. What we have is more sympathetic to a residue of inequality. However, it’s hardly willful or hateful.
    nine pearls wrote:
    I think it’s a bunch of things, and as I already mentioned, I think that there is a certain unending irritation that men have that they were born of women.

    Wow. I thought you were joking when you mentioned it in your initial post. How do you come up with that one?

  32. nine pearls said,

    jaoman wrote:
    If that’s really it, then you’re using bad language. Misogyny, defined as the willful hatred of women, doesn’t apply. What we have is more sympathetic to a residue of inequality. However, it’s hardly willful or hateful.

    I said I was asking about misogyny defined as a societal hatred of women. Not, about just one Billy Bob beating his wife.

    jaoman wrote:
    Wow. I thought you were joking when you mentioned it in your initial post. How do you come up with that one?

    I posted my choice Euripides quotes. I didn’t just pull it out of my ass. Heh.

  33. jaoman said,

    nine pearls wrote:
    I said I was asking about misogyny defined as a societal hatred of women. Not, about just one Billy Bob beating his wife.

    Okay, that sounds more sensible. But I still wonder: why ask for misogyny at all. It is clearly the strongest word there, with very powerful negative connotation. So much so, that it over powers the rest. Besides, is it even a hatred? Inequality can result from all kinds of emotions, the least of which is hatred. While you have the right idea about the problem, I feel you’re fogging it by assuming or misrepresenting its cause.
    nine pearls wrote:
    I posted my choice Euripides quotes. I didn’t just pull it out of my ass. Heh.

    Ah. So you pulled it out of Euripides’ ass instead. One person’s shit still don’t a generalization make. Even if it be Euripides.
    ๐Ÿ˜‰

  34. nine pearls said,

    jaoman wrote:
    okay, that sounds more sensible. But I still wonder: why ask for misogyny at all. It is clearly the strongest word there, with very powerful negative connotation. So much so, that it over powers the rest. Besides, is it even a hatred? Inequality can result from all kinds of emotions, the least of which is hatred. While you have the right idea about the problem, I feel you’re fogging it by assuming or misrepresenting its cause.

    Tobias and I kind of touched on this in that other thread–about how fear/hatred gets blended into oppression.

    jaoman wrote:
    Ah. So you pulled it out of Euripides’ ass instead. One person’s shit still don’t a generalization make. Even if it be Euripides.

    Well, I’ve see in it in other places. Picked Euripides, because hey, philosophy board, Greeks, seemed a good fit.

  35. jaoman said,

    nine pearls wrote:
    Tobias and I kind of touched on this in that other thread–about how fear/hatred gets blended into oppression.

    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.

  36. nine pearls said,

    jaoman wrote:
    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.

    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.

  37. jaoman said,

    nine pearls wrote:
    Where? In the US? In Europe? Or, in Afghanistan? In Tchad? Just saying…

    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.

  38. nine pearls said,

    jaoman wrote:

    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?

  39. jaoman said,

    nine pearls wrote:
    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.

    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.

  40. nine pearls said,

    jaoman wrote:
    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?

    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?

  41. jaoman said,

    nine pearls wrote:
    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.

    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.

  42. nine pearls said,

    jaoman wrote:
    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.

    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.

  43. jaoman said,

    nine pearls wrote:
    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?

    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.

  44. the crooner said,

    I think our phylogeny has laid the genetic basis for misogynistic behavior. Just like other behaviors that can’t be traced to one specific gene, we are nonetheless predisposed to certain behaviors, like aggression, that are a part of misogyny. It might be something akin to infanticide in other primates and other animals: the animals aren’t consciously thinking they want to kill nondescendant juveniles, but a combination of proximate causes and reactions lead to this specific behavior. This (and male violence in general) is explored in the book Demonic Males.

    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.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: