Talk:Misogyny/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Misogyny. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Old comments

Like misandry, misogyny is the pathological hate of a specific sex group, but hate of women by an individual man. Unlike misandry, misogyny has been a major focus to the feminist movement and gets much discussed and investigated. Masculism maintains that misandry has been rampant for thirty years, due to feminist advocacy, and has become a social pathology. Feminism counters that misogyny is a social disease and misandry doesn't exist.

I have removed this entry to /talk for three reasons. First, it seems to be nothing more than a dictionary definition. Second, it is a bad definition: I am not sure that misogyny must be "pathological." Moreover, although some feminists might pathologize their discussion of sexism and misogyny, I am certain that many, and most feminist scholars, do not. The very notion of conflating all feminists into one feminism that has one (simple-minded) view is unconstructive and uninformative. Finally, this entry seems to me to lack NPOV and rather is a veiled attempt to promote a particular point of view. Perhaps there should be an entry here, but this isn't it. -- SR

You answered my question before I could ask it.
Perhaps a single page defining misogyny, misandry, and masculism would work.
Or maybe there's just a strong reaction from men to what they see as unfairness in feminism. The problem is how to express those feelings of unfairness in a NPOV way. I suggest, "According to writer Mr. X, feminism fails to . . ." Or, "Some men also . . ." Ed Poor

I'd like people's reactions to the following statement:

Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for the expression of one's feelings.

I have actually met women who hate (or profoundly distrust) men (at least, they made it seem as if it were all men and not just me). I don't particularly like it, but I can't say I completely blame them. I have nothing at all against Germans, but I can understand (even if I don't think it is really constructive) why a lot of people of my parents' and grandparents' generation hate them. I also think there are many feminists, and many women, and many women feminists, who would admit that there are women who hate men. But I don't think they would identify this as a pathology or major social problem. Most feminists I know are not interested in the fact that individual men hat women, but rather in structural inequalities in our society (which I think many feminists believe explains why some men hat women).

Perhaps there is a need and a place to discuss why some men hate feminists, and why some women hate men. I suspect that this is just too complex an issue to lump into one "pathology" One needs to distinguish between hating men, meaning real living individuals, and hating the idea of "men," or "masculinity," or "machismo." Also, one has to distinguish the hatred an oppressor feels towards the oppressed, from the hatred the oppressed feel towards the oppressor (i.e. not all fights are between equals). Also, one has to explore different kinds of oppression (when one person oppresses anothe, when a system oppresses different people in different ways, etc). There is just so much here to explore that I don't think one word can do justice to. Perhaps an article on psychology could explore some dimensions of this, and and the article on feminism or sexism could explore others. --SR

I'd rather suggest we should discuss the definitions of 'oppressed' and 'oppressor'.

There was nothing wrong with my "definition", and people could add history or even change the definition. As for the "pathological" quality that any group "hate" can have, if it can be applied to "homophobia" it can be applied to "misogyny". These concepts have little use in any event, and have been used and abused by political groups. QIM

Is the quote really necessary? The only function I can see for it is a practical example of subtle misogyny. Timo Honkasalo 12:35 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Not only it is not necessary, but it is insulting and shouldn't be there. I am removing it now. jbc May 24 08:42 UTC 2003

misandry or misandrosy?

I prefer to use the term 'misandrosy.'

It sounds better rolling off the tongue in a condemnatory roar:

"That is misanDROSY!"

whereas, misandry sounds like a plaintive whine.

William Coulson

(Editor Men's Rights Magazine UK Men's Movement)

email ukkmmjournal@yahoo.co.uk

Raise that point at Talk:Misandry, not here. Dysprosia 12:29, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Fix problems below on main page please

Bottom is quote from the main page - could someone sort it out, it looks terrible.

"The foundations of early Christian misogyny- its guilt about sex, its insistence on female subjection, its dread of female seduction- are all in St. Paul's epistles. They provided a convenient supply of divinely inspired misogynistic texts for any Christian writer who chose to use them; his statements on female subjection were still being quoted in the twentieth century opponents of equality for women" The Troublesome Helpmate: A History of Misogyny in Literature Katherine M. Rogers

You're right: the writing is awful. However, it is a quote, so amending it would make it no longer a quote but a paraphrase. I would advocate removing it or paraphrasing it. The ideas are not well set out, so removing it might be best. Rintrah 08:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not particularly useful to spend time and energy debating whether some activity bound to some other culture at some other point in time was or was not misogynistic. Here is why:

When dealing with a fundamental relationship among groups throughout history intellectual integrity requires a "calibration" of how any particular action or idea sat within the cultural frame. If you are trying to make a universal argument, such as "any system that promotes the inequality of women and men as social classes is misogynistic" it really is helpful to set evidence within the context of the cultural. By today's standards, some of the things that Susan Anthony wrote, such as some of her deferential statements about the men who were in power at the time, are simply wrong-headed.

While within a context of the "West" in 2007 such comments would be outrageous, they stood in vivid contrast to what was accepted as the norm in the place and time in which they were first written.

Unfortunately, perhaps, the failure to contextualize these pieces of "evidence" place us in danger of stepping right into another fire, that of further fortifying an extensive hegemony of Western values which continues to contribute to the oppression of other belief systems found throughout the world. If Wikipedia is going to avoid being a document in which mostly white, middle- and upper-middle class, technologically enabled individuals create their own utopia (one which has no life outside of this electronic conscience and consciousness, we really need to relax, take a deep breath and say "even if this is not the way things *should* be, the Wikipedia project is about real people living real lives, not about some sort of "Second Life" creation."

In 2007 it is not particularly unusual to see women discussing international arrangements--as representatives of their respective countries, for example, the recent meeting of the US Secretary of State and the German Chancellor. The US has in 2007 a woman as House Speaker for the first time, which puts a woman third in line to the Presidency. In the US in 2007 a woman is also serving as Secretary of State (the second woman in this post), and for the first time, a woman is among the leading candidates for president in one of the two major parties. There are women in new leadership roles in many other Western European countries as well, including serving in top elected positions in many European countries. Women have long been accepted as political leaders in India, and in Eastern Asia the Philippines is lead by a woman. In most of the countries of the world, however, and for probably more than half of the world's population, it is unthinkable that a woman would lead the government.

I say this to illustrate one point: Even looking at these factually true statements two people could reasonably draw many different conclusions. I would suggest that whatever our approach now, our great-grandchildren will look back and consider us to be crude and backwards. The leading "voices" of 1700, 1800 and 1900 all seem to us to be, at best, quaint, on a number of issues. If anything, the way we quote the prominent figures of the past tells us more about what level of esteem we hold them than about their own convictions in their own lifetime.

Many of us would say that "female circumcision" or "female genital mutilation" is awful and horrible. From my perspective it is. Yet I am not sure on what ground I can stand while preaching to those who believe the practice results in retaining the identity of their people, etc. and defend the practice of male circumcision which is widely practiced in my own country. I requested that both of my sons be circumcised, and it was surely not with their meaningful consent!

It is, of course, completely off-base to compare the surgical circumcision of my son within the first few days of his life, performed with the latest in anesthetics and done with careful control that makes the surgery relatively risk-free to the practice of dragging pre-teen or teenage girls to have parts of their genitalia hacked away with a rusty razor by someone with no medical training at all.

I am certain I would not choose to have my sons circumcised if the procedure was to be done with an old razor blade on a rock somewhere by someone with no training. On the other hand, I don't know for sure that if there were some very limited form of female circumcision that was performed in the hospital, under such sanitary conditions and practiced by everyone in my culture and with no substantial risk of future complications and no substantive negative effects to the grown woman, that I would strenuously object to the practice (I certainly would not allow anything resembling the awful examples held before us as a good and entirely reasonable call to work worldwide to ban the practice). Of course, I don't really know what I would do if. . .I don't live in that sort of society (and there is no such society today that has so many surgeries performed for such small potential benefits or even that sacrifice overall health as the society in which I do live. . )

Point is, the devil is in the details.

And to anticipate one possible response: I am not speaking on behalf of cultural relativism. I do not at all have to say "whatever any society does is right for them; if some tribe wants to feed some of its babies to crocodiles every year, that is their own affair." I do believe there are limits of practice which no society has the "moral right" to cross. It does not require cultural relativism, however, to acknowledge that what constitutes an unfair treatment of women in one culture at one point in time might not be considered to be such in another time and place.

I will also add that I am particularly uncomfortable with our quick response to condemn the practices of cultures much different from our own. It does seem as though we are quite eager to impose a "Western Culture" upon absolutely anyone over which we can gain some political leverage.

All this is to say that universal statements (such as 'what is and what is not misogyny?") cannot be supported or attacked with quotations from any one culture at any one point in time.

For the purposes of a Wikipedia article, I would expect that any example of misogyny be so marked in contrast to the rest of the culture in which it occurred that were contemporary condemnations of the act. Otherwise we risk saying "Benjamin Franklin, as printer, was decades ahead of his time. He never once used electricity to power his printing presses and thus never contributed to global warming." It's all true, but certainly does not belong in an encyclopedia.

SO how about dropping the historical examples of "famous people who were misogynists" unless we have evidence that their opinions and practices would have been rejected as unacceptable within the culture in which they lived? It does, after all, do little to help our readers learn what is misogynistic by pointing to behaviors that were common in another time and place. It does us no good to tell someone "don't have views like those of Spinoza. . ." This would be of no more help than trying to figure out whether presidents Reagan or Clinton were "really" misogynistic. . .

Vagabundus 07:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Forms of misogyny

"The fact that someone holds misogynist views may not prevent them from having positive relationships with some women. Conversely, simply having positive relationships with some women does not necessarily mean someone does not also hold misogynistic views."

I've changed the second sentence so that it makes sense, highlighting that one's relationships with specific women are not probative evidence of one's attitude to women as a whole. As it was previously, in quotes above, it was redundant. Austinbond06 23:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

Page needs a bit of work. There should be more discussion of the fact that misogyny is commonly used, at least in academic writing, in a sense parallel to racism. I think perhaps we need to distinguish the psychiatric condition from the ideological position (e.g., pathological fear/hatred versus intellectual belief in female inferiority). —Tkinias 05:53, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Philosophy and Religion

So there are two examples from Christianity and there are several Western Philosophers called upon to show this. This is not exactly an exhaustive or even an overly illuminating set of examples. There should be a number of quotations from relgious works (New Testament, Old Testament, Koran, Vedas...) as well as a broad swath of philosophy. Or just cut this section as it's POV. Austinbond06 23:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC) As well "even the progressive Rousseau" indicates an authors bias.It is a weasel word I feel should be removed.

Schopenhauer and Nietzsche

"Arthur Schopenhauer, in a very sophisticated epistemological discussion in his main work, included the sentence, "Reason is feminine in nature: it can only give after it has received". His disciple, Nietzsche argued for beatings of women."

Nietzsche was influenced by Schopenhauer's work. It could be argued that he inherited some misogynistic attitutes from Schopenhauer as well. However, calling Nietzsche a "disciple" of Schopenhauer is overly strong.

Some of Nietzsche's writing has been criticized for being misogynistic by, among others, Walter Kaufmann. However, I have never heard of Nietzsche arguing for the beating of women. I have certainly never come across any such writing by him whatsoever. If that statement is kept in, I would appreciate a reference. - JD

I bet it is from this: "Are you visiting women? Do not forget your whip!" (From "Of Old and Young Women," Thus Spake Zarathustra, Part 1, Hollingdale translation). I think Nietzsche is often taken out of context and misinterpreted, and this might be another typical example--if you read the whole chapter, the quoted line at the end of it seems more metaphorical than literal. If there is another passage somewhere in his work advocating "beating of women" I'm not aware of it. Antandrus 15:59, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, "disciple" is overly strong. Also, the influence of Schopenhauer on Nietzsche is extremely tangential to the article. So I prefer to just leave that discussion to the Nietzsche and Schopenhauer articles. - snoyes 16:08, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I hate to come back to this, as it is fairly tangential to the article(but there is a point in that, too I think), but there are problems with the Nietzsche references.

First, I would like to point out that some of the references to Nietzsche's supposed mysogyny are simply out of context, and thus misunderstood. For example, the "Woman was God's second blunder" reference is from section 48 of The Antichrist. It is only misogynistic if you have either not read it in the original context, or cannot understand it in the original context. [See here for one of the translations.] It is part of a critique/interpretation of the Biblical creation story and related issues; it is not an assertion. This should be fairly apparent to just about anyone who actually reads the section. Anyway, Nietzsche's supposed misogyny is usually (but not always) a matter of not really knowing what he is writing about (like above). And if I recall correctly, most of his statements that are more credibly referred to as mysogynistic were written soon after his relationship with Lou Salome went sour, and shouldn't necessarily be taken as a pristine reflection of his regular line of thinking.

Thus, my first point is that in a section on the mysogyny of philosophers, Nietzsche is not a very clear example--as I have indicated above. And among those listed, Nietzsche seems to have drawn the most attention. I'm not sure why, but a few particular feminists seem very vocal about Nietzsche's "mysogyny" without even reading(and thus not understanding) any substantial quantity of his work or thought. And they do so when there are far better and clearer examples of mysogyny. Schopenhauer is a good example. Just about any religious text as well.

My second point is that including philosophy and philosophers is rather irrelevant. Philosophers, like everyone else, are produced by the cultures in which they lived--they are human, too. Ancient greek culture was very mysogynistic, and thus, most ancient greeks (and thus, ancient greek philosophers) harbored mysogynistic feelings. One could (and should) say that philosophers of any consequence should rise above those feelings(which quite a few actually did)... but the relevance of that whole issue is incredibly tangential. Religion, on the other hand, is usually much more severely and consistently mysogynistic, and has had much more influence on civilization than philosophy. I would draw the analogy of the anti-semitism article having a section on anti-semitism in religion and aviation, and then going on at length on the anti-semitism of Charles Lindbergh(who truly was incredibly anti-semitic, even for his day and age). - JD

I disagree very strongly with the people who say that Nietzsche wasn't misogynistic. "Beyond Good and Evil" is probably his most misogynistic work. There is one passage, in there, where he says that every higher stage of civilisation involves stricter controls on women; I think it is there that he argues for beatings. He also refers to the trend of what he called as "degeneration" in Europe as the "feminine spirit" as well as other names like "the herd instinct". Someone said that most of his comments were made after his fall-out with Salome, but there are misogynistic comments in all his works, apart from his very earliest ones. Women are usually lumped together with the masses, the weak or, in one great passage, with shopkeepers and animals [somewhere in "Twilight of the Idols"]. Schopenhauer always seems to get grilled worse than Nietzsche for misogyny, yet he actually said some nice things about women [they are more compassionate, have greater intuitive knowledge, are more down-to-earth], whilst I can't remember Nietzsche ever saying anything complementary about women. Schopenhauer actually said that Islam and Hinduism were too strict on women, although he thought that Europe was far too lenient on them.

I have added horizontal bars to this section in light of the fact that the poster of the "I disagree very..." paragraph attached his/her post to the end of my post in such a way that it appeared that I wrote it.

Whether you think that Nietzsche was misogynistic or not does not really address any issues that I raised. A complex and detailed debate on Nietzsche's misogyny or lack thereof might be relevant in the Nietzsche article, but not the misogyny article. The primary point that I was trying to get across (and maybe failed to) was that Nietzsche is not a clear example of misogyny. And I think only clear examples should be used. To again show that it is not a clear issue, I will reply to some of the issues raised in the previous post.

For what it is worth, I myself think that Nietzsche was a little misogynistic, at least by modern standards. However, people tend to blow it out of proportion. Many things contribute to this.

For one thing, whenever Nietzsche criticizes women, you need to ask yourself if he is referring to the way women are or how they must be or are by nature. If you consider Nietzsche to be complaining about the state of women, it changes the context quite a bit. Nietzsche lived in, more or less, Victorian times. Bertrand Russell, who was quite critical of Nietzsche, was quite critical of Victorian women in an essay entitled "Nice People", which I recommend people to read.

Often, when Nietzsche criticizes women, he also criticizes men.

As for Nietzsche never saying complimentary about women, he rarely says anything complimentary about anybody. And, when all is said and done, did not write a great deal on the topic of women. I think this point should bring a lot of criticism into context. Also, he claims(my apologies, I cannot at the moment remember where) that the best woman is better than the best man.

When Basel decided to let its professors vote on allowing women admission, Nietzsche and one other professor were the only ones who voted in favor of it. This would seem to show that Nietzsche was far ahead of his times in terms of women's rights despite being condemned as a misogynist.

As for this or that excerpt being misogynistic, Nietzsche's writings are notoriously difficult to interpret; his misogyny or lack thereof is a very tangled issue. Entire books have been written on it. So I am trying (and certainly failing, to a degree) to avoid being drawn into a debate over the issues of particular excerpts being misogynistic or not. This is the misogny article, not the Nietzsche article.

Which brings me to the point I am trying to make for this article: Nietzche is not relevant to an article on misogyny, except as a potential example of it. And he is not a very good example. A good example of misogyny would be the practice (still practiced in Taiwan), of throwing a bucket of dirty water out the window when a daughter gets married. -JD

I must say that I'm amazed to hear that Niezsche voted in favour of women entering the lecturing profession. I can see what you mean in your defence of Nietzsche, but I'm not sure if the word "misogyny" is usually meant to mean someone who clearly detests women 100%. If so, this article would probably have no examples in it, whatsoever [just maybe, that Type O Negative album would count :)]. Perhaps, a few sentences should be added offerring a defence of Nietzsche, but I think that references of him should definitely be kept in, as he is a name closely associated with misogyny in academia. Leaving him out would be like pretending that he's never been accused of misogyny.

On the matter of the vote(I remembered the votes a little wrong above, sorry), consider the following(from here):

10 July: a meeting of the general faculty considers the question of the admission of women to doctoral programs. Although the faculty decides against admission by a vote of 6 to 4, one of the faculty voting in favor of admission is FN (Jakob Burckhardt votes against it). He and the three others request explicitly that their advocacy be recorded in the official record.

If you doubt it, feel free to check into it yourself. See: Curt Paul Janz, Friedrich Nietzsche: Biographie, 1993

My point wasn't that he doesn't detest women 100%. My point is that determining whether he was or was not a mysogynist is extremely involved, given the very nature of Nietzsche's writings.

As for a defense of Nietzsche, that would derail the article even further. The article isn't about Nietzsche, it is about misogyny. And I think that the article should focus on acts and beliefs which constitute misogyny, not whether certain individuals were or are, in fact, misogynists. The only reason to focus on individuals, in my opinion, is to provide a clear demonstration of misogyny. If you have read Nietzsche at all, then you know that the last thing Nietzsche is is clear.

Leaving out Nietzsche does not pretend that he hasn't been accused of mysogyny, it is simply irrelevant to this article. Many people have been accused of misogyny, but they aren't mentioned. If there was a section on the history of Feminism, and Nietzsche is or was terribly important in the development of feminist thought, that would be a different story.

I do realize that Nietzsche is strongly associated with misogyny in some (perhaps most) academic circles, but that does not mean that misogyny is strongly associated with Nietzsche.

I suggest that, if you feel strongly about making a case for Nietzsche being a misogynist, you do so at the Nietzsche article. Or even start a new page. But that's just my opinion... -JD

I just want to bring up two points which seem to go unnoticed about discussions of Nietzsche's misogyny. The first is that the notion of "feminine" was a central part of the pseudo-philosophic discourse of German classicism and idealism, which is one of the main targets of N's attacks. Half the references to "feminine" are directed mockingly towards Goethe's "eternal-feminine" and thus really not about "women" at all. But I think an even more important point about the whole debate is that no one considers Nietzsche a representative of "philospophy", or the common opinions held by the majority. In fact, he considered himself, and was considered by others, as the direct opposite of all the metaphysics from Plato to Hegel. So even if you try really hard and show there are misogynistic views in his work, it really does not say anything about world philosphy, while any such point in Aristotle, Descartes, or Kant actually would. ---FPS

Addition to this section

I added a link to a scholarly, balanced page discussing the controversy over Nietzsche's views on women. While the page was an improvement over the earlier mess which described him as a "disciple" of Schopenhauer. He was influenced by, but far from uncritical of, Schopenhauer. Even whether his views on women were influenced by Schopenhauer is disputed. His anti-feminism fit into the context of his philosophy, whereas Schopenhauer's views on women seem to appear at random and are far more difficult to interpret as not to be taken at face value. The fact that "actually said some nice things about women" is not the point. Unlike Nietzsche, when Schopenhauer he was talking about women, Schopenhauer was clearly talking about women. That is touched upon in the link I added.

Nietzsche would make a better addition to the anti-feminism section. He undoubtedly believed that women are primarily mothers, but to call that misogyny is a feminist POV. Also, why is there no "misandry in philosophy" section on the misandry page? Some of Nietzsche's statements would qualify, although a far better candidate for such a section would be his "disciple" Spengler. Almost all of the pages on this site relating to "gender issues" (I hate that word) are overly influenced by feminist ideology and badly need fixing, not just this one.

JD- I generally agree with the points you have made, but while there need not be a lengthy discussion on this page about Nietzsche's views on women, I felt that it should be briefly explained that his reputation as a misogynist is disputed. That is why I made the addition to that section of this article. (And while this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, Charles Lindbergh was NOT "incredibly anti-semitic, even for his day and age.") 03:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that you may be going over the line of Wikipedia's laws on politeness to other users there. It seems to be, on the contrary, that you are the one who is blowing things out of proportion by challenging what is just one sentence in the article; a very long and semi-coloned-sentence, but still just one. I actually scanned through "Beyond Good and Evil" today, found the relevent passage to the article and have inserted the reference in brackets. Let me reproduce passage 7:238 here:

238

To blunder over the fundamental problem of `man and woman', to deny here the most abysmal antagonism and the necessity of an eternally hostile tension, perhaps to dream here of equal rights, equal education, equal claims and duties: this is a typical sign of shallow‑mindedness, and a thinker who has proved himself to be shallow on this dangerous point shallow of instinct! ‑ may be regarded as suspect in general, more, as betrayed, as found out: he will probably be too `short' for all the fundamental questions of life, those of life in the future too, incapable of any depth. On the other hand, a man who has depth, in his spirit as well as in his desires, and also that depth of benevolence which is capable of hardness and severity and is easily confused with them, can think of woman only in an oriental way ‑ he must conceive of woman as a possession, as property with lock and key, as something predestined for service and attaining her fulfilment in service ‑ in this matter he must take his stand on the tremendous intelligence of Asia, on Asia's superiority of instinct, as the Greeks formerly did: they were Asia's best heirs and pupils and, as is well known, from Homer to the age of Pericles, with the increase of their culture and the amplitude of their powers, also became step by step more strict with women, in short more oriental. Flow necessary, how logical, horn humanly desirable even, this was: let each ponder for himself!

That seems pretty clear to me! Seeing as the article now refers to that specific section and that this is undeniably a clear exposition of misogyny, I don't think that there can be any further grounds for complaint. Saying that this isn't clear misogyny seems to be like saying that Mein Kampf isn't clear anti-Semitism. You say that the article is about misogyny and not about Nietzsche, so there is no need to bring up whether he voted for female professors to be allowed. The example is correct in the article and that is all that matters. Ed

I know Wikipedia doesn't seem to like "debate" very much. But you decided to weigh in as well, I might note. And if I was really trying to be rude, I'd just change the article. I'm just trying to correct what I see as a flaw in the article. It is just one sentence, but I think it diminishes the article, and promotes a preconception and misconception of Nietzsche and his work.

Now to address Sec. 238 of Beyond Good and Evil. You say that it is a clear example of misogyny. Well, misogyny is hatred/fear/aversion of women. By calling the passage misogynistic, the looser (and weaker) definition is being used. While the passage is certainly contrary to modern taste (so are his views on democracy), it didn't have to (and most probably did not) stem from hatred or fear.

The passage mentions a number of things, but I will focus on the two big ones. He criticizes the notion of women's rights, and claims that the great civilizations were strict with women.

That he criticizes the notions of women's rights does not stem from fear or hatred, but is merely a consequence of his more fundamental philosophy. He criticizes democracy for mostly the same reasons. He was critical of the growing tendency to "equalize", whether manifested in democracy, women's rights, or anything else. Basically, he doesn't make an exception from his general philosophy specifically for women. Whether you agree with his general philosophy is a different issue.

Likewise, claiming that great civilizations have been strict with women does not in itself constitute misogyny. Of course, it runs counter to feminism, and is offensive in it's implications, but that is a different thing.

Of course, a counter-argument is that while his comments do not in themselves constitute misogyny, they are in such bad taste that only a misogynist could make them. That is, of course, a fallacy.

While statements like Nietzsche's are often taken as strong *symptoms* of misogyny, they themselves do not constitute it, and Nietzsche's flamoboyant style and the difficulty of interpretation make the case against him weaker.

See Godwin's law.

I brought up the vote, because it is a counterexample to the common interpretation of his writing on women. It is even more significant because it was a straight-forward action he took.

I am not saying that a defense of Nietzsche should be added. I just don't think he should be included at all. For that matter, I don't think "philosophy" or "philosophers" are terribly relevant at all.

As one other side-note: some Feminists have been trying to "recruit" Nietzsche for feminism in recent years. Obviously it is less clear than you make out. I suggest reading the book, "Feminist Interpretations of Friedrich Nietzsche", or at least read this review.

-JD

Bob Marley

I took out the comment that Bob Marley used to sing "No Woman, No Cry", since the meaning of the song was "No, woman, don't cry", which is clear from context (he also says "Little darling, don't shed no tears.") It's a common misperception about the song. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 23:36, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Removed text

I've removed the following text from the intro section, because it's little more than unverifiable POV editorializing.

This term is generally used as an accusation against men or traditional women. Often it translates to "anti-feminist" rather than a general antipathy toward women. It can also mean extreme dislike of women of a particular ethnic group rather than women as a whole. This term has little specific meaning other than as verbal vitriol for people who disagree with the user, much the same as the term racism.

CDC (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

BDSM

The problem of Wikipedia is that feminists write about feminism. But they ignore a (IMO) absurd article on Bondage (BDSM), with some (again IMHO) degrading pictures..... --pippo2001 21:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Misogyny and sexual chauvinism

Some of the examples in the lists seem to be male chauvinists rather than misogynists. Hatred of women is not the same as a belief in their ineriority although the two conditions may be linked. —Theo (Talk) 23:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

More Misandry

"Misandry" is a relatively uncommon word and it seems from scouring the internet that people are generally unaware of it. I found that a number of people search for the "male equivalent of misogyny" and I myself learned of it in this way. I would not be surprised if some of the readers of the misogyny article also look for the gender-opposite term.

As such, I think that a brief explanation / definition of the (albeit linked) word ought to be included in this article, even if it is just a single line in parenthesis as an adjunct to Misandry. 217.109.186.46 15:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Misogyny in culture

I know I am going to spark a debate but I thought I throw this out here. Shouldn't we delete this section? Most of it is just conjecture, opinions, and because Wikipedia is supposed to be non-biased it doesn’t really belong or at least I think so. Whispering 03:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Basically since a lot of it is taken out of context and the section generally is a mess, concerning the original meaning intended, whether it's example of bad attitude(Gaston in Beauty and the Beast is IIRC the bad guy of the movie), supposed to learn people about the "truth", enforcing people into submission(religion etc, well that was POV of me...), personal opinions, pure provocation(Anal Cunt), irony etc. 85.226.122.222 07:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I agree with Whispering that this section should be removed. I don't feel like it adds much to our understanding of misogyny; it's just a list of works of art that contain derogatory statements about women. The full list of all such works would be far too big for this page, so what's the point of listing a few of them? Maybe if it were just four or five really classic and famous examples, like the Hamlet one, it would be useful. --Allen 06:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Misogyny in culture

(n.b. Several entries that follow clearly employ misogyny for ironic or satirical purposes)

In William Shakespeare's Hamlet, Hamlet chides his mother Gertrude for her decision to marry his uncle Claudius immediately after his father's death with the infamous line: "Frailty, thy name is woman!" (I, ii, 146)
British poet Robert Gould wrote a number of explicitly misogynistic satires in the 1680s.
In Mozarts Magic Flute, one of Sarastro's henchmen says to him: "Ein Weib hat also dich berückt? Ein Weib tut wenig, plaudert viel" (So a woman beguiled you? A woman does little, chatters a lot).
In the 19th century, Swedish dramatist and novelist August Strindberg had a powerful and overt misogynistic philosophy.
Grumpy, in Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, says "All females is poison! They're full of wicked wiles!"
Gaston from Disney's Beauty and the Beast first says that it's not right for a woman to read, then later calls Belle his "little wife" and says that Belle and he will have six or seven "strapping boys" like himself.

[[:Image:Utfosp.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Rappers UTFO were sometimes labeled as misogynist; here, use of the term "skeezer" may be objectionable. Such material is rather tame in comparison to more modern recordings]]

Anal Cunt, a noisecore shock band (in)famous for their intentionally offensive lyrics, often write songs with misogynist themes such as "Women: Nature's Punching Bag", "You're Pregnant, So I Kicked You In the Stomach", and "I Became a Counselor So I Could Tell Rape Victims They Asked For It".
The heavy metal band Manowar often employ sexist lyrics, most notably in "Pleasure Slave".
R&B group Bell Biv DeVoe famously sang, "Never trust a big butt and a smile" in their hit song "Poison".
Comedian Andrew Dice Clay was famous for misogynist rants in his routines.
Punk rock singer GG Allin was infamous for misogynist songs.
Some feminists considered The Rolling Stones' "Stupid Girl", "Under My Thumb", "Yesterday's Papers", and "Midnight Rambler" to be misogynistic.
The goth-metal group Type O Negative have often produced misogyny in their songs. One line claimed, "is there no difference between women and fire? The one burns the spirit, the other the flesh!" The first album, Slow Deep and Hard, is particularly misogynist.
In ancient times, Roman satirist Juvenal, in particular his sixth satire.
Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver quotes "I realize now how much she's just like the others, cold and distant, and many people are like that, women for sure, they're like a union."
The comedy film How to Murder Your Wife has been criticised for misogyny.
Rap artist Snoop Dogg has long been criticized for his misogynist lyrics, especially in the 1990s. However, he has made recent strides to distance himself from this previous negative image.
Rapper Eminem has been labeled by some critics, including electronic musician Moby, as a misogynist. This claim generally centers around the tracks "Kill You" and "Kim" from The Marshall Mathers LP.
Rapper Nelly has been criticised for his music video Tip Drill.
N.W.A.'s Efil4zaggin, their last album as a group, was considered excessively misogynistic even by some fans of the gangsta rap genre.
Final girl theory is a feminist film theory about misogyny in horror films.
An early rumor, that continues to this day, is that Mae West was born male, and became a transsexual, a myth that is disproven by the 1900 census which lists Mary Jane West with her known family in Brooklyn, New York. The people of her time found it impossible to believe a woman could be sexually forward, or, even, sexual. Adding the fact that she was a writer, she fell too far outside the stereotype of a woman to be believed.
Punk rock group Silver Head's song 'Misogynist' details a psychotic male's fixation with a prositute.

Just thought we could remove this section for now and hash out what should be left in. And maybe make it less like a list and more encyclopedic. Whispering 20:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Altered Intro

I equalised the terms of reference for Misogyny and Misandry, and clarified the second last sentence:

Misogyny ( mĭ-sŏj ' ə-nē ) is hatred of or strong prejudice against women. Compared with anti-woman sexism or misandry (hatred of or strong prejudice against men), misogyny is usually regarded as directed against women by some men, though women can also hold misogynistic views. In feminist theory, misogyny is recognized as a political ideology - similar to racism or anti-Semitism - that justifies and maintains the subordination of women by men. The word comes from the Greek misos "hatred" + gyne "woman".

I will post the alterations tomorrow, if nobody objects.--shtove 19:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Women who dislike women?

The article on misandry currently states that misandry may appear in men. I believe that misogyny can appear in women. Someone might want to write that down. --Thomi 11:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Self-hating women. Hmmm. 68.32.48.42 17:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The Patricia Highsmith page notes accusations of her being a misogynist, as well as a lesbian. People are strange. 82.32.65.149

It's not so much a self-hating woman as a woman who is so misandristic that anyone who sympathizes with men must therefore be despised as well...it's the classic "you're either with us or against us" scenario, only the dividing line is, of course, the sexes.

Gene S. Poole 04:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Feminist men?

Currently says:"(It should also be noted, however, that philosophers such as Pythagoras, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Engels, Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Henry George supported feminism.)"

The article on feminism recognizes that feminists may lobby for special legislation, and it is widely recognized that feminism blames women's problems on men/patriarchy. The article on feminism recognizes that beliefs of feminists may be diverse.

I'm quite confident that the term "feminism" was unknown or not widely spread when these men lived, or when one or more of these men lived. I think it should say, if that should be true, that these men were in favour of women's rights than feminism. How do you think that is? --Thomi 11:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, i doubt that Pythagorias that lived centuries before feminist ideas formed could support them :) Please find correct words.

A distiniction should also be made between feminism and misogyny - they are not automatic antonyms. One could be an anti-feminist and still not be a misogynist, just as it is argued it is possible to be a feminist and not a misandrist for example. The antonym of feminist is anti-feminist, the antonym of misogyny is philogyny. --Jgda 05:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, it seems rather strange as it is made into words. It serves no relevant purpose. Remove?

(unsigned)

I'd have to agree that listing such a group of men as "feminist" or "supporting feminism" is a little too simplistic - or even a lot too simplistic! Not only was the word not yet invented when, say, Plato was writing, but also when you look at these writings carefully, you see that it wasn't a modern idea of feminism that was being supported there, not by a longshot.

It might be better to note that each of these thinkers held certain views about women which were different from, and more empowering than, the standard views of the cultures that they lived in, while not necessarily being what a modern view would term "feminist." Plato, for instance, in the "Republic," certainly gives women more credit for ability and potential than most thinkers of his time would have, but at the same time he specifically places women a little below men in terms of these abilities which, he says, both share.

Maybe it would be more useful, instead of listing "feminist men" from history, to develop a list of historical references to women by thinkers who were in some way offering a *reframing* of prevailing views of women. That way it could even include stuff like the "Lysistrata" which is famously debated in terms of just how seriously Aristophanes took the idea of women in control... was it purely a comic device because it was so ridiculous, or was it intended to show that women did in fact have the ability to govern, or was it something more complicated than either of those extremes?

I'll tag this article and maybe take a stab at working on this section as my first real contribution - as soon as I've had at least a week's rest from a marathon grad-school semester! Of course, if someone else gets there first, power to ya. :) Hierophany 22:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that saying Plato "supported feminism" is an absurd and blatantly biased view of history which links a figure from an ancient civilization to a 20th Century ideology. One could say the Spartans "supported feminism"[1] but then one could just as easily say they "supported fascism" or that the French Revolution "supported Bolshevism" (or again that it supported fascism, which is not really a coherent ideology anyway but that's a different discussion). It's meaningless. Now personally, I think the only one of those philosophers who could be considered truly proto-feminist is Engels, but that raises a whole other discussion on what "feminism" is. At the very least, can't we stick to post-Charlemagne history if we're talking about a 20th Century ideology? Shield2 05:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Luv in Great Britain

Could someone please explain to me why "luv" is on the list. I am from Yorkshire and "luv" is sometimes used to address men as well in areas like Leeds. It is certainly not an insult and is frequently used when adults are talking to young children. Maybe it's a bit different in other parts of Britain, but putting it up here as a misogynist word is, I feel, something of an overreaction. If someone doesn't reply in a week, I shall remove that word. Whatever happens, it needs to be written that not all parts of Britain consider the word to be inflammotary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.32.128.113 (talk • contribs) .

No response. It's getting removed.

Nor is 'sheila' considered derogatory in Australia - except that it might be considered uncouth, but certainly not misogynistic. It could be used hatefully in intonation, but so could the word 'woman'. --Jgda 05:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Is it just me or has the Religion portion of 'Misogyny in Religion &...' section gotten away with just a slap on the wrist? Just because the Pope says he's sorry does not mean it didn't happen, YKWIM?

misogyny and crime

Just a question. How come this paragraph supposivly talking about violence against women and sexist crimes end up being more than a half talking of how men too are victims sometimes? I mean, if you take a look at statistics (even considering your argument that men tend to report less), there is no discussion! A women dies every 2 days in europe beatten up by her compagnon. Do we have that sort of numbers the other way round? I'm not trying to say men are not victims as well, but this page is about men hate against women, so i really think you should cut of a bit of that part. Otherwise the article is pretty good. User:Shagada 09:46, 5 October 2006

The additional information helps give some perspective, since by quoting the statistics of violence a conclusion is being drawn that misogyny is the only motivation behind the violence. By looking at some other statistics, such as how men are statistically the larger target of violence than women, it suggests there is a possibility that there are other motivations for violence other than sex hatred. Bald statistics are dangerous, at best, and tend to encourage 'no discussion' viewpoints. Jgda 21:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so it has already been removed and a whole bunch of other unqualified and obviously NPOV statistics added. The KKK use unqualified stats to 'prove' how much more dangerous black people are too... Such things are good indicators of hatred, and very little else: in this case misandry.Jgda 21:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

False Assumptions

The following section needs to be changed, as it makes a horribly false assumption.

Much of the misogyny of the men's rights movement is directed towards feminists. Just as racists during slavery divided blacks into "good negroes" and "uppity troublemakers", so misogynists create a dichotomy of "good women" (submissive, eager to please, able to "take a joke", uncritical of bad male behavior) and "feminists" (women who demand accountability from men and who ask to be taken seriously as human beings.)

Ascribing this form to men's rights activists is completely sexist. It assumes men's rights activists wish for silent women and that they don't take them seriously as human beings.

This needs to be revised seriously. I'm going to delete it, as it has wrong POV.

misogyny and crime #2

No answer above: I suppose it's meant to be self-evident, like most forms of pervasive prejudice. Almost this entire section warrants deletion - several paragraphs are pure soapbox. It's not as if there isn't plenty of research out there to actually tie the crimes against women into misogyny as the motivation - whether I agree with it or not - otherwise the material should be used in violence against women, not here. Jgda 00:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Misogyny in language

"All cultures are linguistically based, and all cultural beliefs, values, and concepts are based in language, and language represents these. Language was created with the interests of maintaining and perpetuating power. [...] The languages used by most people in the world were written by powerful men to serve the interests of patriarchy, classism, and racism." - wow...

There are so many things to take issue with here that I don't even know where to start. The whole section reads like some form of extremist propaganda. How about just deleting it? User:Julian

Be bold, Julian. I've tried to re-cast those paragraphs to avoid the (insane) suggestion that men "wrote" languages for their nefarious ends; but I don't think anyone would have objected if you had just deleted them. VoluntarySlave 02:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

-Misogyny in Language-

An Overview All cultures are linguistically based, and all cultural beliefs, values, and concepts are based in language, and language represents these. Language was created with the interests of maintaining and perpetuating power. In the case of the European languages, they were written by white men. The languages used by most people in the world were written by powerful men to serve the interests of patriarchy, classism, and racism. Most, if not all, major languages are in fact patriarchal in their very origins. Language has created and perpetuated social hierarchies of all types to serve the white, male, human hegemony, privilege, and supremacy. It prescribes cultural concepts, behaviors, mores, gender and class roles, and boundaries surrounding all of these.

This first paragraph alone is enough to call the entire entry on "Misogyny" into question. I've only taken an Introduction to Sociology class before and I can tell that these "conclusions" on language and culture are not quite correct. The anti-male bias in this paragraph alone is ridiculous!

134.71.142.46 08:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The section of Language is not referring to misogyny.

Article text

The word "man" appears in a number of words denoting female or gender-neutral concepts, for example, "woman" and "human." Some have argued that this etymological coincidence promotes a view of the female as derivative of the male, and so should be avoided in contemporary usage, for instance replacing "women" with "womyn".

Some have argued in any sentence is a recognisable signature of weasel language; to me, at least, it makes the idea following it immediately seem dubious. This point aside, the view expressed is entirely ridiculous. That "man" being part of "woman" promotes the idea of women being derived from men is absurd. The etymology of "man" and "woman" makes the view impossible to sustain. In fact, by insisting the "man" part in the word "woman" be excised, one insinuates the "man" part is poisonous, and therefore associates a strongly negative sentiment to "man". Assuming the contrary, one would have to presuppose a similarity between the two words necessarily implies male dominance. How could such an premise be supported? It only seems credible with extreme emotive prejudice. It would be equally rational (or irrational) to suppose the similarity implies female dominance, if it were not for the assumption of ubiquitous male dominance.

I don't see what encyclopedic value these two sentences quoted have. If they remain, it must be assumed they have some relevance to the idea of "hatred or strong prejudice against women". Rintrah 12:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Ridiculous" the argument may be, but it's widespread and worth mentioning here. That's why the word "womyn" exists. I agree it would be good to cite actual people who hold the view, rather than the vague "some." VoluntarySlave 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, it only seems widespread among feminist circles, particularly the radical ones at university. It exists because of the zeal of a small group, not because of widespread vituperation at the word's immanent male domination. I am sure you could find a source for the argument, but without further detail, the article overstates its relevance. In fact, the sentence per se admonishes men nebulously, without much scope for analysis. It needs more context to validate its relevance. Rintrah 10:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning. It needs to be altered to sound more neutral in my opinion.

The argument about the etymology of "woman" is notable, but is about male-centric thinking rather than active hostility to women as such, so I would agree that it doesn't belong in this article. DanB†DanD 02:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean here. "man" and "woman" came from the same Old English, gender-neutral word "man" (or "mann"), meaning "person"—thus, "woman" is not a modification of a masculine word or an implicit symbol of subordination. Old English had two entirely different words for man and woman: wer and wif. The etymology of "woman" is hardly male-centric and certainly not misogynistic. An idea to the contrary is rather paranoid and doesn't make any sense.

We do not have to include all the paranoia and neuroses of radical feminism in the article. There are already too many ideologically written articles in wikipedia. Instead of uncovering some El Dorado-like truth, we should be writing articles according to the proper guidelines.

The etymology argument is only notable insofar as it shows misguided thinking. Rintrah 07:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)