schmelzer said:
It is what the sources I prefer tell me about the meaning of this word.
The definition being used here is from the standard dictionaries of the English language, normal usage. It was posted in the OP and (despite my quarrels with nuance in it) is the one being used in all of my posts as well as many others here. If you wish to reply to my posts with any relevance toward the arguments being made in them, that is the meaning you would have to handle in your reply. All my arguments use the term with that meaning. No replies that pretend I used any other meaning are validly addressed to my arguments.
If you wish to use words with meanings adopted by yourself from unknown sources and not as used by life long speakers of English such as myself, why pretend to be replying to me? You are arguing semantics with well-educated native speakers - go to the linguist subforum, where such arguments belong.
schmelzer said:
This sounds like a quite inclusive definition of "misogyny".
It's standard. And it's the established base of the arguments here, from the OP on.
schmelzer said:
None of the German translations of "misogyny" above would be applied to a large fraction of men.
Can't help you there, I speak very little German.
I suspect you are finding propaganda in them, and correcting for it as is your custom. I also suspect you are failing to perceive aspects of the nature of the men around you, that run contrary to your common sense.
Why do I think that? Because of this, among the otherwise puzzling naiveties on display:
schmelzer said:
What could be the reason to present men who are attracted to women, and want contact with them, as "misogynists"?
1) That's you, taking a discussion of degrees of misogyny and attempting to change it to one of name-calling people like yourself. Are you aware of this habit? It's obvious psychiatric role?
2)Because they regard women with a significant degree of disdain, ingrained prejudice, essential contempt - even, in a surprising number of them, approaching hatred. That's the term, in English, for that pattern or nature of regard.
The sexism based in this is of course visible in their behavior, to understate the case. It is codified in their laws and publicly defended in their customs and recordable on video cameras while one is walking down the street on a normal weekday afternoon. But it is apparently difficult or disturbing to recognize - pointing this out in the face of "common sense" has been the centuries long and very difficult informational task of the people you are dismissing as "feminists" with an "interest" in disparaging "all men".
You have now asked the same odd question from both directions: you have asked why a person afflicted with misogyny would be attracted to women, and you have asked why a person attracted to women would be recognized as afflicted with misogyny. But both these questions are apparently rhetorical from you - you ask as if there were no answers, implying the common reality does not exist (or only as an uncommon psychopathy).
schmelzer said:
(elementary sociobiology: women want a lifelong partner, who supports only herself and her children, men want sex with many women)
Elementary biology indicates that women want to bear children by two or three genetically disparate men, that men want to maintain close contact with any children they engender for at least eight years, and that both sexes want to engender children via partners 18 - 25 years old. How the "socio" handles that is of course among the aspects of the current topic.