Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You see I don't think that mere disparagement counts as misogyny.

I think it can do, depending on context.

If that were the case then TV commercials showing useless and clueless men would count as misandry, and that would be pathetic.

I think that's a little more of a complicated case. I don't think one advert showing one man being clueless is misandrist. However, taken as a group, so that it becomes a trope (more explicitly in sitcom set-ups, I'd say, than adverts. But, then, I don't watch many adverts), then I do think you're getting into misandry territory. Not a particularly egregious example, no, but I don't think something has to be big in order to qualify as discriminatory or stereotypical.

Of course, one reason that it becomes less clear-cut in such an instance is the fact that various media rely on stereotypes in order to tell a story quickly without having to explain lots of background, and adverts are an extremely short form of storytelling. In fact, human beings rely on stereotyping in order to make sense of the world quickly, which is one of the reasons why anybody who claims to be a critical thinker has to be constantly aware of how they perceive the world and why it might not be accurate. But that's the point - even if we acknowledge that we have to accept such things in adverts, it's as well to be aware of it.

My reading of the word is an utter loathing of women on the basis of nothing more than their womanhood. A misogynist must necessarily detest women, must loath them completely, seeing them as value only for vessels to have children and to satiate the desires of men.

I think you're using a somewhat old-fashioned version of the term. Oxford English Dictionary

Definition of misogyny
noun
[mass noun]

dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women

 

[Lorentz]

Astute observation imo. This is not to say disparaging women is OK, but it can certainly fall way short of misogyny. But we should remember women are still dealing with the legacy of misogyny every day, and try and be empathetic if they are a little sensitive on this issue.

Makes me so sad when posters I enjoy reading and nearly always agree with fall out.

The "legacy of misogyny"? You're talking about the times when women couldn't vote, or when they were discouraged from being financially independent, or seeking their own careers outside the home?

That too, is using the Newspeak version of misogyny. Women weren't hated, they merely had lower social status and with that were to be cherished and protected: "women and children first!".

Patriarchy - back when it was a real thing - wasn't about hating women, it was about seeing them as vulnerable fragile creatures who needed to be protected from the evils of the world, as they wouldn't be able to handle reality by themselves. This often sucked for women, well, for women who were wealthy enough to have had options otherwise. Poor men and women both worked themselves into the ground, with men getting the more backbreaking jobs outside the home.

This view of women as special fragile creatures who should be protected from anything that might offend them, curiously has strong parallels with some versions of feminism I read about here...

 

[Foolmewunz]

Hopefully join you in fighting against it. At least they'll have had some practice.

Uh, just where are they getting this practice? Is there discussion/debate in the sooper sekret forum with actual oppressors going on? Because in their little safe harbor they are getting approximately zero battlefield experience in the Social Justice Wars. Do you assume that the actual fight is going to be a bunch of anonymous posters on the internet dog-piling one poor schlub who disagrees with the groupthink? That's about the only qualification any of them are getting merit badges in.

I can see the battlefield commander for Misogystan.

"Ah, Lothar! We had this won, and were ready to raze their HQ, but now it's seriously in doubt. It's.... It's... the A Plussers! Should we just surrender?"

"Naaah, just show 'em a link to a discussion on women's undergarments, send 'em a group PM, and turn on a bright red flashing LOL sign. Those who haven't then curled up in a fetal position, just show an 8 x 5 color glossy of Richard Dawkins' butt."

 

[Joe Random]

This view of women as special fragile creatures who should be protected from anything that might offend them, curiously has strong parallels with some versions of feminism I read about here...

I find this a very interesting insight, and wonder if you'd like to discuss this up in my room over coffee ...

 

[adamwho]

Misogyny is fundamentally about intentions rather than actions. But you can see the mind reading all over Aplus, when they psychically determine the mental state of any person who disagrees with them.

 

[luchog]

I was mostly curious how our A+ friends would deal with the issue of cops that are not the old white boy club, will they have to twist themselves into little knots or come up with a special category for them like they do with "brown people's religions"?

I can't speak for the specific A+ crowd, but SJWs I am familiar with inevitably resort to the "race traitor" and "X on the outside, white on the inside" slurs. I recall that it was less than a month into Obama's first term as President that the shouts of "Oreo" and "Uncle Tom" started. Interestingly, these were just as common from white far-lefties as they were from black radicals.

 

[Diogenes]

...But you can see the mind reading all over Aplus, when they psychically determine the mental state of any person who disagrees with them.

They should take a run at the prize, then, $1 million dollars can probably help their movement.

 

[luchog]

Astute observation imo. This is not to say disparaging women is OK, but it can certainly fall way short of misogyny. But we should remember women are still dealing with the legacy of misogyny every day, and try and be empathetic if they are a little sensitive on this issue.

I would dispute this. Many women deal with the legacy of prejudice every day. True misogyny (that is, actual hatred of femaleness) is a far from common occurrence, and has never been a significant social factor. What is a social factor is prejudice against (or even for) women based on predominantly religious principles intended to control and protect the reproductive process to ensure the survivability and/or dominance of a particular social group. All other aspects of oppression of women, such as infantilizing or restriction of social rights, are not specific to women, but have been applied at various times to many other demographics; and all are intended to maintain the dominance of a particular social group. In many cases, they're merely distortions of earlier principles of reproduction management.

While there have been times that true misogynists have managed to successfully implement social policies based on their hatred, these are short-lived anomalies, limited by greater social customs and mores.

The fringe feminists have overused and misapplied the word "misogyny" so much as to make it effectively meaningless.

 

[Kochanski]

I would dispute this. Many women deal with the legacy of prejudice every day. True misogyny (that is, actual hatred of femaleness) is a far from common occurrence, and has never been a significant social factor. What is a social factor is prejudice against (or even for) women based on predominantly religious principles intended to control and protect the reproductive process to ensure the survivability and/or dominance of a particular social group. All other aspects of oppression of women, such as infantilizing or restriction of social rights, are not specific to women, but have been applied at various times to many other demographics; and all are intended to maintain the dominance of a particular social group. In many cases, they're merely distortions of earlier principles of reproduction management.

While there have been times that true misogynists have managed to successfully implement social policies based on their hatred, these are short-lived anomalies, limited by greater social customs and mores.

The fringe feminists have overused and misapplied the word "misogyny" so much as to make it effectively meaningless.

Absolutely, and this should be in bold everywhere:

The fringe feminists have overused and misapplied the word "misogyny" so much as to make it effectively meaningless

Every time I hear the words misogyny, patriarchy & privilege I lose all desire to listen to or read what someone is saying. I just hear blah blah blah whine whine whine and I stop listening.

I am now embarrassed to say I am a feminist, a sad place for me to be, but I do not want to be lumped in with these whiny individuals.

 

[Lorentz]

I find this a very interesting insight, and wonder if you'd like to discuss this up in my room over coffee ...

You're parroting misandrist thoughts!
Don't do that.

 

[Jono]

Unless you happen to be addressing old white males, when dismissive slurs are apparently fine over at APlus.

"If you are targeting a group of people with the word you are using, you are in the wrong"

?!?!

Do they even read their own rules?

 

[dasmiller]

"If you are targeting a group of people with the word you are using, you are in the wrong"

?!?!

Do they even read their own rules?

Read it carefully: "If you are targeting a group of people with the word you are using, you are in the wrong"

The rules don't say anything about A+ core members possibly being in the wrong, just about you being in the wrong.

I'm not sure what rules they have for themselves.

 

[Jono]

Read it carefully: "If you are targeting a group of people with the word you are using, you are in the wrong"

The rules don't say anything about A+ core members possibly being in the wrong, just about you being in the wrong.

I'm not sure what rules they have for themselves.

Ah yes...

 

[Humes fork]

They talk about defining prejudice (their understanding of it) as woo. It seems to me this endeavor is feminism packaged in a skeptical garb. What's the point of that?

No wonder Dawkins no longer hangs out with Myers. And I think Carrier has made some major damages to his reputation.

The point of science and skepticism is that everything is to be questioned, everything is negotiable, and evidence is the judge. To commit oneself to a set of political dogmas seems to be a very bad idea in that light.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I've only encountered Post-Modernism in the SJ activism sphere. But right now I am reading a book about it and reading what Derrida and Heidegger had to say about experience and reality and it really shines a light on where some of the peculiarities of A+ come from.

Ironically, from his Wiki entry:

In his 1989 Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, Richard Rorty argues that Derrida (especially in his book, The Post Card: From Socrates to Freud and Beyond) purposefully uses words that cannot be defined (e.g. Différance), and uses previously definable words in contexts diverse enough to make understanding impossible, so that the reader will never be able to contextualize Derrida's literary self.

Linky.

 

[squealpiggy]

They talk about defining prejudice (their understanding of it) as woo.

I think they have a point there. Assuming that someone is more likely to be a criminal because of the colour of their skin? Absurd! Assuming that someone who is non-religious is less prone to kindness purely because of their lack of belief? Ludicrous! Assuming that a strange male in thestreetis as likely as not a violent rapist, just because of his gender? Preposterou... what? That one isn't woo?

 

[Mr. Scott]

I think they have a point there. Assuming that someone is more likely to be a criminal because of the colour of their skin? Absurd! Assuming that someone who is non-religious is less prone to kindness purely because of their lack of belief? Ludicrous! Assuming that a strange male in thestreetis as likely as not a violent rapist, just because of his gender? Preposterou... what? That one isn't woo?

That one isn't woo because the A+ alpha dogs say it isn't woo. They are all about appealing to authority.

 

[qwints]

Assuming that a strange male in thestreetis as likely as not a violent rapist, just because of his gender?

That would be a ridiculous assumption, but I'm not familiar with anyone on atheismplus who would make it. I am familiar with people trying to explain the constraints women face from a combination of the risk of any given person attacking them (quite low in any individual encounter) and the way people talk about and act towards women who've been victims of sexual violence.

The point of science and skepticism is that everything is to be questioned, everything is negotiable, and evidence is the judge. To commit oneself to a set of political dogmas seems to be a very bad idea in that light.

First, a minor quibble. "Evidence" cannot be the judge of anything, only cognitive entities can "judge." But, of course, they should do so using evidence.

Second, a question. How does anyone distinguish between committing to a set of political dogmas and reaching conclusions about political issues?

 

[Diogenes]

...How does anyone distinguish between committing to a set of political dogmas and reaching conclusions about political issues?

Depends on how one reacts when questioned about one of those conclusions about a political issue. If the first argument for or against one of these conclusions requires a fallacy in order to support it then it is probably dogma. Can the conclusion be described as an Idol of the Tribe/Cave/Marketplace/Theater? If so maybe it is dogmatic.

 

[squealpiggy]

That would be a ridiculous assumption, but I'm not familiar with anyone on atheismplus who would make it. I am familiar with people trying to explain the constraints women face from a combination of the risk of any given person attacking them (quite low in any individual encounter) and the way people talk about and act towards women who've been victims of sexual violence.

Everyone who posted in, and survived, the Schrodinger's rapist thread was insisting that this assumption is necessary to remain safe.

The overall message was not "be wary of strangers". It was specifically you might be violently sexually assaulted by male strangers, so assume that all male strangers are going to.