Degrees of Misogyny

[Schmelzer]

I haven't bothered labeling anyone a "misogynist".

So, a misogynist is not someone showing misogyny?

Misogynists as you label them do not in general want to avoid all contact with women. The percentage of them who feel sexual urges is not a small minority, just for starters, and hatred of the kind you describe is as likely to motivate obsessive contact as avoidance.

Sorry, but if I hate somebody I try to avoid contact with this person, and it does not matter at all how sexually attractive this person is. And this is clearly the rational reaction. Of course, there is a lot of irrationality in human behavior, but one should not present psychotic behavior as if it would be typical.

 

[Edont Knoff]

This group also contains the people who are scared of women, so the counter-reasoning, that people who avoid women are misogynic is not always true.

But I agree, the likely reaction is avoidance. In psychology this is a common finding - someone has whatever problem with something, and begins to avoid said thing. Very few go on a rampage against it.

Think spiders. Usually the people who have a problem with spiders, just try to avoid them. Very few go on a crusade to remove all spiders from the world. They just try to keep spiders out of their vincinity.

 

[billvon]

Sorry, but if I hate somebody I try to avoid contact with this person

That's great. Many other people pursue the people they hate - to try to kill them, banish them, subjugate them or subject them to their will.

and it does not matter at all how sexually attractive this person is. And this is clearly the rational reaction. Of course, there is a lot of irrationality in human behavior, but one should not present psychotic behavior as if it would be typical.

It is, unfortunately, far more typical than people are willing to admit. Read police reports. Heck, talk to people in bad relationships.

 

[Schmelzer]

One should distinguish the wish of revenge against a particular person from general hate feelings. And bad relationships are yet another completely different problem.

 

[billvon]

One should distinguish the wish of revenge against a particular person from general hate feelings.

Both exist. Plenty of people felt superior blacks in the 1950's. But rather than just "avoid contact" with them, they passed all sorts of laws and promulgated informal rules for dealing with them to "keep them in their place." Indeed, many of those people didn't even hate blacks - they merely found them inferior, or morally corrupt, or unintelligent, or naturally shiftless.

Very few people sought direct revenge, through beatings or lynchings. Most people simply supported racist laws.

Today many people feel the same way towards women. Violence is much less common but unfortunately still exists. Misogyny is more commonly expressed through men who refuse to hire women for stressful jobs, feeling that women simply cannot hold up to stress, or will become too emotional to be rational. Or through workplaces where men are taken seriously and women whistled at. Or through relationships where women are ordered to stay home because "that's what women do."

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Both exist. Plenty of people felt superior blacks in the 1950's. But rather than just "avoid contact" with them, they passed all sorts of laws and promulgated informal rules for dealing with them to "keep them in their place."

Your chronology is way off. There were indeed still plenty of racists in the 1950s, and a few new laws were indeed enacted to "keep the negroes in their place." But most of those laws had already been passed at least a generation earlier, and moreover, many of these affronts to dignity were not even laws but customs that were universally enforced in small towns--such as the "sundown rules," requiring all Afro-Americans to be outside the city limits after sundown. And of course the worst of the actual laws had already been enacted one or two generations before that, in the Jim Crow era, and enforced by the Ku Klux Klan as well as actual police officers.

The 1950s were, in fact, the decade in which the first modern battles over civil rights were fought--and won. Truman integrated the U.S. military after WWII, as a matter of honor after so many Afro-American soldiers fought and died heroically--and of course because after Auschwitz and the other death camps were discovered, even the most racist Americans sort of gulped and said to themselves, "maybe we should try a little harder to not be like the Germans."

Then his successor, Eisenhower, integrated the schools in Little Rock, by sending in the National Guard. Unfortunately this was the last major thrust of civil rights enforcement by the party of Abe Lincoln.

However, the Democrats won the next two elections and maintained the momentum of the civil rights movement. Against all expectations, LBJ, a Texan and a Democrat, changed the country's racial culture. (Many of us assumed that Ladybird, one of the nicest women who ever lived, used her persuasion skills to make him do this, but he had the good sense to marry her in the first place, so they both get credit.) Johnson admitted that his administration had lost the South to the Democratic Party forever, and indeed Dixie has been Republican territory ever since, and the two parties have almost completely swapped platforms.

There are still millions of white Americans who don't like black people, but their numbers are dwindling as other ethnic groups immigrate to give them worse headaches. Not to mention we're also trying to improve the lot of women, the LGBTQ population, the elderly, the handicapped and people who are not Christians.

Indeed, many of those people didn't even hate blacks - they merely found them inferior, or morally corrupt, or unintelligent, or naturally shiftless.

And of course those are all qualities that blossom under persecution.

Very few people sought direct revenge, through beatings or lynchings. Most people simply supported racist laws.

There were just enough beatings and lynchings to keep the "darkies" in line.

Today many people feel the same way towards women. Violence is much less common but unfortunately still exists. Misogyny is more commonly expressed through men who refuse to hire women for stressful jobs, feeling that women simply cannot hold up to stress, or will become too emotional to be rational. Or through workplaces where men are taken seriously and women whistled at. Or through relationships where women are ordered to stay home because "that's what women do."

Indeed.

 

[iceaura]

So, a misogynist is not someone showing misogyny?

Depends. The thread topic is "degrees of misogyny", remember?

Sorry, but if I hate somebody I try to avoid contact with this person, and it does not matter at all how sexually attractive this person is.

Misogynists of your definition, given all the opportunity in the world, do not avoid women voluntarily. To get them to avoid women we often have to construct jail cells with bars on the windows, and lock them inside.

But I agree, the likely reaction is avoidance

That is not the observed behavior.

And that is accepting a silly and unsupported definition of "misogynist", apparently adopted for the purpose of supporting a dismissal of the entire discussion attempted by this thread. A more serious examination of misogyny, such as was allegedly the purpose of this thread once upon a time, might produce a more reasonable definition - but after an actual discussion of misogyny, not this chaff.

 

[Schmelzer]

Misogynists of your definition, given all the opportunity in the world, do not avoid women voluntarily. To get them to avoid women we often have to construct jail cells with bars on the windows, and lock them inside.

No, this is only a psychotic minority among them. Or your attempt to extend my definition of misogynist to your own, so that it includes men who like to have contact with women but have some ideas about the abilities of women and their role in society you do not share, and behave in agreement with a culture you hate.

And that is accepting a silly and unsupported definition of "misogynist", apparently adopted for the purpose of supporting a dismissal of the entire discussion attempted by this thread. A more serious examination of misogyny, such as was allegedly the purpose of this thread once upon a time, might produce a more reasonable definition - but after an actual discussion of misogyny, not this chaff.

My problem with this discussion, as I have tried to explain many times, is that cultural differences seem to be presented as character flaws.

 

[iceaura]

No, this is only a psychotic minority among them

There is no substantial fraction of heterosexual men that voluntarily avoids women, in the real world.

My problem with this discussion, as I have tried to explain many times, is that cultural differences seem to be presented as character flaws.

You haven't explained why this is a problem. Is a culturally ingrained contempt and prejudicial disdain for women not a character flaw? Is it in your view impossible by definition for a culture to abet, encourage, and inculcate, a character flaw?

 

[Edont Knoff]

There is no substantial fraction of heterosexual men that voluntarily avoids women, in the real world.

Do you have sources to support for this claim?
And what would you consider a "substantial fraction"?

I'm asking, since a value like 0.1% (likely not a substantial fraction) of a population of say, 200 million (both genders) is still 100.000 individuals - so even if it is a tiny fraction, it still are too many to be neglected.

 

[iceaura]

There is no substantial fraction of heterosexual men that voluntarily avoids women, in the real world.

Do you have sources to support for this claim?

Uh, no. I'm not going to even speculate on why you need a source for that one. I kind of think I'm dealing in mockery, here. I find the notion that one can deal with misogyny via currently non-existent opportunities for the afflicted men to voluntarily isolate themselves from women a bit - - odd. what planet are these guys from, anyway?

And what would you consider a "substantial fraction"?

Whatever you think fits. There are hermits, after all - we have to allow for idiosyncrasy.

 

[Edont Knoff]

men to voluntarily isolate themselves from women a bit - - odd. what planet are these guys from, anyway?

I know of some. In many cases it is a mixture of anxiety and laws which handicap men, e.g. if a man and a woman share a common flat or house and there is a fight, over here it's always the man who has to leave the flat or house, the woman can stay. There are more of such laws, which all put the women in the better position.

So some men over here say "Stay away from women. If you deal with them, and something goes wrong, you'll always be the loser."

 

[exchemist]

There is no substantial fraction of heterosexual men that voluntarily avoids women, in the real world.
Uh, no. I'm not going to even speculate on why you need a source for that one. I kind of think I'm dealing in mockery, here. I find the notion that one can deal with misogyny via currently non-existent opportunities for the afflicted men to voluntarily isolate themselves from women a bit - - odd. what planet are these guys from, anyway?
Whatever you think fits. There are hermits, after all - we have to allow for idiosyncrasy.

I've known quite a few shy heterosexual men that voluntarily avoided women - at school and university, mainly. It's not a healthy situation, of course. But it certainly happens, when people devote a lot of time to their intellectual or sporting obsessions and neglect their social development.

 

[Tiassa]

I'm asking, since a value like 0.1% (likely not a substantial fraction) of a population of say, 200 million (both genders) is still 100.000 individuals - so even if it is a tiny fraction, it still are too many to be neglected.

Actually, what fascinates me is why whenever a known troll wants to change the subject, there are so many others who want to lend a hand. After all, if misogynists simply avoided women, things would be a lot easier to figure out and work with. As it is, we have people asserting that women don't have the right to leave the house without being sexually harassed, yet we need to change the subject because some troll wants to wank pedantic.

You know, trolls will be trolls will be trolls, but it's the aching need to accommodate them that really disappoints me.

So some men over here say "Stay away from women. If you deal with them, and something goes wrong, you'll always be the loser."

I would simply note that of the men I've known who have said that or something similar, the only one who actually stayed away was gay; but he still went shopping with his mother, who was in turn obliged to either endure the catshit from her own adult son or else tell him to finally grow the hell up. But the women are trouble bit is kind of common in my time and experience, and usually comes from men who are, in the moment, disappointed or affronted by the fact of some woman having not given him what he wanted.

Most of the fortune-cookie aphorisms about women suck like bad fellatio; they are sloppy, lazy, and incomplete.

 

[iceaura]

I've known quite a few shy heterosexual men that voluntarily avoided women - at school and university, mainly.

Speculation: you've known shy men who did not approach young attractive women, or put themselves in a position to be rejected or ignored by them.

They did not avoid old women, their mothers, female family members, professional associates, wives of colleagues, or women they were associated with by circumstance in situations preventing rejection or similar awkwardness. They did not change class assignments to avoid female instructors or classmates, refuse to talk to female librarians, skip buses or taxis with female drivers, alter their accustomed routes or habits to avoid a new female presence near them, etc. And, somehow, most of them acquired girlfriends and eventually wives - amirite? In other words, when you described them as heterosexual it was on the basis of evidence - you weren't guessing. Because their efforts to avoid women were never all that successful, for some reason.

So some men over here say "Stay away from women. If you deal with them, and something goes wrong, you'll always be the loser."

So men need lots of repeated advice and aphorisms and exaggerated stories in order to be persuaded - apparently against their natural tendencies - to not actually move in with a woman, lots of them do it anyway, and that is your idea of men avoiding women.

 

[exchemist]

Actually, what fascinates me is why whenever a known troll wants to change the subject, there are so many others who want to lend a hand. After all, if misogynists simply avoided women, things would be a lot easier to figure out and work with. As it is, we have people asserting that women don't have the right to leave the house without being sexually harassed, yet we need to change the subject because some troll wants to wank pedantic.

You know, trolls will be trolls will be trolls, but it's the aching need to accommodate them that really disappoints me.



I would simply note that of the men I've known who have said that or something similar, the only one who actually stayed away was gay; but he still went shopping with his mother, who was in turn obliged to either endure the catshit from her own adult son or else tell him to finally grow the hell up. But the women are trouble bit is kind of common in my time and experience, and usually comes from men who are, in the moment, disappointed or affronted by the fact of some woman having not given him what he wanted.

Most of the fortune-cookie aphorisms about women suck like bad fellatio; they are sloppy, lazy, and incomplete.

!!!???

 

[Schmelzer]

There is no substantial fraction of heterosexual men that voluntarily avoids women, in the real world.

I have never claimed that this fraction is substantial.

You haven't explained why this is a problem. Is a culturally ingrained contempt and prejudicial disdain for women not a character flaw? Is it in your view impossible by definition for a culture to abet, encourage, and inculcate, a character flaw?

If he would live in this culture, nobody would consider him to have any flaw. That's why I would not name this a personal flaw, and in my understanding a character flaw is a personal flaw.

Somebody educated in another culture often has big problems to live in a different culture. Some try hard and behave appropriately in the new culture. Other people prefer other solutions, like creating small subcultures with other people from the same culture. As long as such subgroups behave in agreement with the surrounding culture if they have contact with it, this is unproblematic too. The only people who are problematic for their surroundings are those who do not accept the other culture. But this problematic type of behavior of emigrants is nothing I would attribute to the culture itself.

So far about cultural conflicts because of emigration. The situation is yet different if some part of the society tries to change the culture and another part does not want to follow and wants to prefer the old culture.

 

[Tiassa]

!!!???

Can anyone explain to me why this discussion of degrees of misogyny is so far up the rabbit hole that we're checking in for the digression about men who avoid women?

Seriously, what does this small bloc of ostensibly heterosexual men who allegedly avoid women for hatred, have to do with anything? The only time they have any functional relationship to a discussion like this is if they happen to refuse to hire women in order to accommodate their hatred. And how many of those are we really talking about?

Because they put their studies↑ ahead of social interaction? That's not necessarily a question of misogyny.

Because men are the real victims↑, here? In what way is that helpful to the discussion? At all?

But in the end, the problem here is that this is all a digression based on fake pedantry trying to redefine the word "misogyny". I get why someone might wish to drive a stake through that kind of trolling. What I don't get is why any right-minded, ostensibly well-intended individual would lend a hand to that kind of trolling.

And this is the thing about bigots and bigotry: There is always another one waiting in the wings. Seriously, didn't we just stall out of a cycle in which someone was trying to redefine misogyny? Naturally, the first thing we need is another go.

To the one it's expected; this is how bigots do it. Have you tried the rape culture thread↗, in which we are apparently obliged to occasionally restart the discussion in order to accommodate an insupportable straw man about how men are the real victims?

No, seriously; think of the progression.

(1) Ask a question.

(2) Dismiss responses in order to postulate a cookie-cutter straw man↗; that generally doesn't work.

(3) Fear not; someone else will ignore all the subsequent discussion, and try the straw man again↗, as if it is somehow new; and no, that generally doesn't work out very well, either.

(4) Still, though, fear not; after a while, someone else will ignore the entire discussion in order to try the straw man yet again↗, as if it is somehow new, and nobody knows why anyone expects it to work out any better this time.​

The repetition never really evolves significantly because it is not supposed to; the point is to reset the discussion and have another go at it.

We've already seen, in this thread, an attempt to redefine misogyny↑ that even went so far as to propose that a woman doesn't have the right↑ to leave the house without being sexually harassed; the best we can interpret of that whole argument is that apparently it isn't misogyny if one doesn't actively hate women but, instead, is just too lazy to bother regarding women with basic human respect.

And now as part of the second redefinition push↑, we're down to "Misogyny means one does not like women, and, thus, one is expected to prefer the company of men."

That was nearly two weeks ago, and this is about some assertion of totalitarianism↑ that starts with the human rights of women. That desperate advocacy is now down to, "Misogyny means one does not like women, and, thus, one is expected to prefer the company of men."

I get why this one needs to be tacked to the wall. What I don't understand is anyone else blithely playing along, which in the end only reiterates that any discussion occurring at the intersection of women and human rights is best served by talking about something else, preferably men.

And that is what disappoints me. Trolls will as trolls do, but what about anybody else?

Look at them all line up. The one benefit societies get from this sick manner of discourse is the record of just how easy and common misogyny is. Then again, therein lies the problem; there is a reason some would aim to proscribe sloth from misogyny―they don't hate women, see, but just think it's unfair that anyone should have to think about human rights in any context pertaining to women other than #WhatAboutTheMen.

 

[exchemist]

Can anyone explain to me why this discussion of degrees of misogyny is so far up the rabbit hole that we're checking in for the digression about men who avoid women?

Seriously, what does this small bloc of ostensibly heterosexual men who allegedly avoid women for hatred, have to do with anything? The only time they have any functional relationship to a discussion like this is if they happen to refuse to hire women in order to accommodate their hatred. And how many of those are we really talking about?

Because they put their studies↑ ahead of social interaction? That's not necessarily a question of misogyny.

Because men are the real victims↑, here? In what way is that helpful to the discussion? At all?

But in the end, the problem here is that this is all a digression based on fake pedantry trying to redefine the word "misogyny". I get why someone might wish to drive a stake through that kind of trolling. What I don't get is why any right-minded, ostensibly well-intended individual would lend a hand to that kind of trolling.

And this is the thing about bigots and bigotry: There is always another one waiting in the wings. Seriously, didn't we just stall out of a cycle in which someone was trying to redefine misogyny? Naturally, the first thing we need is another go.

To the one it's expected; this is how bigots do it. Have you tried the rape culture thread↗, in which we are apparently obliged to occasionally restart the discussion in order to accommodate an insupportable straw man about how men are the real victims?

No, seriously; think of the progression.

(1) Ask a question.

(2) Dismiss responses in order to postulate a cookie-cutter straw man↗; that generally doesn't work.

(3) Fear not; someone else will ignore all the subsequent discussion, and try the straw man again↗, as if it is somehow new; and no, that generally doesn't work out very well, either.

(4) Still, though, fear not; after a while, someone else will ignore the entire discussion in order to try the straw man yet again↗, as if it is somehow new, and nobody knows why anyone expects it to work out any better this time.​

The repetition never really evolves significantly because it is not supposed to; the point is to reset the discussion and have another go at it.

We've already seen, in this thread, an attempt to redefine misogyny↑ that even went so far as to propose that a woman doesn't have the right↑ to leave the house without being sexually harassed; the best we can interpret of that whole argument is that apparently it isn't misogyny if one doesn't actively hate women but, instead, is just too lazy to bother regarding women with basic human respect.

And now as part of the second redefinition push↑, we're down to "Misogyny means one does not like women, and, thus, one is expected to prefer the company of men."

That was nearly two weeks ago, and this is about some assertion of totalitarianism↑ that starts with the human rights of women. That desperate advocacy is now down to, "Misogyny means one does not like women, and, thus, one is expected to prefer the company of men."

I get why this one needs to be tacked to the wall. What I don't understand is anyone else blithely playing along, which in the end only reiterates that any discussion occurring at the intersection of women and human rights is best served by talking about something else, preferably men.

And that is what disappoints me. Trolls will as trolls do, but what about anybody else?

Look at them all line up. The one benefit societies get from this sick manner of discourse is the record of just how easy and common misogyny is. Then again, therein lies the problem; there is a reason some would aim to proscribe sloth from misogyny―they don't hate women, see, but just think it's unfair that anyone should have to think about human rights in any context pertaining to women other than #WhatAboutTheMen.

A 35 line response, to an expression of surprise.

Regarding the earlier discussion, if you thought it was going off topic, you, as a moderator, could have have simply said so and called it to order. I admit I jumped in when I read something I thought worth supporting, but if it was deemed off-topic I would have bowed out. Because whatever other defects I may have I am not a troll. What you chose to do however was make a nasty reply accusing people of trolling, embellished with distasteful and uncalled for references to wanking, fellatio and catshit. !!!???

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat ― Deplore and denounce

A 35 line response, to an expression of surprise.

Must have struck pretty close:

Regarding the earlier discussion, if you thought it was going off topic, you, as a moderator, could have have simply said so and called it to order.

Sciforums does deplore and denounce misogyny and all forms of bigotry. Would you prefer that moderators stop regarding these discussions from the point of view of also being posting members? Because bigotry is not tolerated at Sciforums, and if you really want our Mod Hats on, I, for one, am more than happy to answer the call.

And then members like you will have less risk of jumping into off-topic discussions, filing useless complaints when they don't like the response, and then deciding to tell moderators how to do their jobs.

Our jobs would require us to radically transform these discussions pretty much immediately.

And, yeah, we can do that.

Zero tolerance for bigotry would radically transform these discussions rather quite immediately.

Ask yourself what you think the membership wants. I will take it up with my colleagues.