Talk:Misogyny

Suggesting removal of Object relations theory

Object relations theory is not strongly related to misogyny, it should not be linked from this article. HypatiaX (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

According to feminists, in its most overt expression, a misogynist will openly hate all women simply because they are female.

Surely that is not the case because it defies logic. Why would somebody hate woman because they are woman? Surely they hate woman because of the perceived characteristics of woman? That's like saying a racist hates black people because of their skin colour, rather than the perceived characteristics that pertain to somebody of that race.90.220.86.155 (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing the above sentence entirely. This statement is uncited. 90.220.86.155 makes the good point that it is illogical. This statement appears to be original research (overtly incorrect original research). HypatiaX (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Redundant and unnotable lead

The sentence "A person who hates women is called a misogynist" is redundant. The Greek roots of this word are not notable. The second and third sentence should be removed. HypatiaX (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten most of the lead to be a summary of the article. Kaldari (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Alleged misogynists original research

I propose removing the lead paragraph of the Philosophy subsection:

  Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Otto
  Weininger, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Socrates,
  Gautama Buddha, Plato, Aristotle and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel are
  alleged to be misogynists.

The remainder of the section gives examples of what may be misogynistic statements by some of these philosophers. However, to conclude, from those examples, that these 12 notable philosophers have been alleged to have been misogynists constitutes original research. Sources have not been provided that call all 12 of these philosophers misogynists.

The sections on Kant, Aristotle, Hegel, at cursory examination, provide adequate citation of allegations of misogyny. The section on Socrates appears to contain original research to produce an allegation that he was a misogynist.

I suggest removal of the sections on Socrates, Weininger, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Wittgenstein. The conclusion that these philosophers were misogynists is original research.

I suggest renaming the section to something like Notable Misogynists and including a more balanced discussion on Kant, Aristotle, and Hegel HypatiaX (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

link to feminist criticism of marriage

A link was recently deleted. It was a link to a feminist critique of marriage, which is in the marriage article. The feminist critique is about the misogyny of marriage. Whether marriage has become nonmisogynist in some parts of the world, that is not the case around the world. The link was not to the whole marriage article, or even to the marriage article at all; it was to the feminist critique within the article on criticism of marriage. If there's no objection, I propose to restore the link. Is there a better way to link to the criticism? Nick Levinson (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Because "misogyny" does not mean "discrimination against women" or even "oppression of women". Misogyny is a much more limited term that means "hatred or dislike of women". I checked the target section, and while it says that many feminists feel that marriage is discriminatory against women, I didn't see any assertions that it is linked to a hatred of women. In other words, that link would be appropriate in Sexism, but not here. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

definition per dictionaries

I added definitions from three dictionaries.

In response to a recent Edit Summary:

• While an etymology of a word is part of the history of the definition, it is not a limitation on the modern definition or definitions. Definitions are determined in leading dictionaries by current usage, reflecting what people have tended to mean by a word.
• When a definition is 'A or B', one does not modify the other, including not softening. Rather, the definition is either A or B. English grows that way, words with wider usage acquiring additional shades of meaning closely related and acquiring very different meanings with only minor relation to the original sense. That can and often does result in a word acquiring a softer meaning. Trying to enforce the original meaning as the only still-valid one is usually futile.

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)