Talk:Misogyny

Archives
2003-06

Sources for misogyny in literature/philosophy

The claims that certain quotes are misogynistic in this article must be backed up by appropriate apolitical sources or they will be deleted. Jgda 00:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the tiny personal attack on my user page (and the user's touching concern for my credibility) I though I better elaborate on the above request. When an example of literature/philosophy is being held up as an example of misogyny, it must be cited as being held up as such by a neutral source, otherwise explanations for the statement other than misogyny can (and, if anyone is bored enough, will) be made. It's hardly a big ask: there's plenty of literature out there to cite on this topic: you could fill a small library, so I'm not doing this out of spite or thinking that it can't be done. It just should be done. Jgda 03:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving deleted content here:

In the 16th century the Scottish Protestant reformer John Knox wrote a book called The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women in which he argued against the ability of women to govern.

Nietzsche is known for arguing that every higher form of civilisation implied stricter controls on women [Beyond Good and Evil, 7:238]; he frequently insulted women, but is best known for the phrases, "Women are less than shallow", "Woman was God's second blunder," and "Are you going to women? Do not forget the whip!" Napoleon, Schopenhauer, Machiavelli, Aristotle, Tolstoy and Rousseau were also known for making such comments about women. It should also be noted, however, that philosophers such as Plato, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Engels, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, and Henry George supported feminism.

The philosopher Otto Weininger, in his 1903 book Sex and Character, characterized the "woman" part of each individual as being essentially "nothing", and having no real existence, having no effective consciousness or rationality. Weininger says, "No men who really think deeply about women retain a high opinion of them; men either despise women or they have never thought seriously about them." The author August Strindberg praised Weininger for probably having solved the hardest of all problems, the "woman problem".

No men who really think deeply about women retain a high opinion of them; men either despise women or they have never thought seriously about them. -- Otto Weininger

As children, imbeciles and criminals would be justly prevented from taking any part in public affairs even if they were numerically equal or in the majority; woman must in the same way be kept from having a share in anything which concerns the public welfare. Sex and Character: Otto Weininger

Ursala King in her 1987 article in Comparative Education: "World Religions, Women and Education" states very clearly that women "were always excluded from formal education once sacred knowledge became transmitted in an institutional manner".

I still do not understand the justification for deleting this content, instead of tagging it. I googled "John Knox misogyny" and I found Knox's misogyny is legendary. and there is more to Knox's literary legacy than misogynist polemic. and for a misogynist as Knox and Knox's theories about women rulers reveal him as a misogynist and a prude just from the first page of results. Same for Nietzsche and Weininger. And these aren't just blog hits, they all got hits from JSTOR and universities. How is this content unsourced? Each section specifically says where the quotes come from, and what books are in question. Seems sourced to me.--Andrew c 01:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem: just cite the link between the quoted or paraphrased material and the reputable source that connects the material to misogyny. The Christian quote remained because it did just that. As I said before, I'm quite certain it can be done: there is so much material out there. Jgda 21:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Knox material certainly states his opinions re. the inability to govern, but doesn't actually tie his motivation down to misogyny. The Weininger source doesn't back up the statements attributed to him in the article: using this source it would be accurate to say that Weininger felt that women 'failed to measure up to the ethically rigorous demands of Kantian personhood.' I haven't yet had time to look at the Nietzsche reference, but the problems with the quotations given are mentioned in several JSTOR articles, such as the well-used 'do not forget the whip' quote that is written by Nietzsche in 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' under the persona of Zarathustra and being said by 'the little old woman'(Of Our Favorite Nietzschean Question Jason S. Caro Political Theory, Vol. 27, No. 6. (Dec., 1999), pp. 750-768). 128.250.6.246 00:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Knox material demonstrates prejudice — not uncommon at the time, but pointed in the present era. If what you say of Weininger is true, I suggest you delete the reference. If I am not mistaken, Nietchsze also admonishes men, so quoting him as a source of misogyny would be equivalent to, say, quoting Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary. Rintrah 03:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't our jobs to decided whether or not these individuals were misogynists or not. It is our job to report on our sources. While not universially agreed upon, it is common for contemporary authors to call Knox, Nietzsche, Weininger, etc "misogynists". A simply google search can verify this, and I tried my best to find scholarly citations on Jgda's request, even though I didn't understand the basis for the request. -Andrew c 03:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I followed your suggestion, and I found many sources which dispute or doubt Nietschze's purported misogyny ([1], [2], [3], & [4]) — actually more than ones affirming his misogyny, and some which did only did so ambiguously. Does this literature compel me to state he is not a misogynist — according to wikipedia source guidelines? I don't think I see your point. Rintrah 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly not our job to say these individuals were misogynists or not, that's just my point. It's for credible source material to back up the actual statements made in the article. I'm not even asking for a balanced piece indicating the contrary postions to the ones being claimed. 'Common for contemporary authors' is weasel wording. Which authors? How common? If it was written in the article 'Knox is commonly referred to as a misogynist' and then (since the word 'commonly' is being used) say four or five references from credible sources specifcally saying 'Knox is a misogynist' then it wouldn't matter what I or you thought. The sources you use are fine (whether I agree with them or not), it's just that they don't match up to what is actually being said. And if you use specific quotes to prove misogyny, you need a source that links those quotes to misogyny. And if there's enough source material problemizing the links (as suggested above) then, to be fair, that should be accounted for also. Jgda 06:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Katherine M. Rogers

Why is Katherine M. Rogers quoted at length? In the first instance, the quote is inelegant and better paraphrased; in the second instance, Rogers foretells a war between the sexes and makes dubious, overblown conclusions about man's response to women's rights — it's untempered vitriol, not suitable for an encyclopedia. If she must be included, she should be paraphrased or quoted at smaller length, lest the article implicitly endorse her views (contra NPOV). Rintrah 14:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that, while it provides a context for the claimed connection between Christianity and misogyny, it doesn't have much to do with the statement above it. If it did, then it would imply that the Catholic Church has seen the error of its ways now. In fact, what does the material regarding the Pope's apology have to do with misogyny? The apology is for 'sins against the dignity of women and minorities'. Did he say that one of those sins was misogyny? Jgda 22:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed the second one. Rintrah 03:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Some may"

While a "seducer" like Casanova or Don Juan might appear outwardly charming and to enjoy the company of women, some may interpret these figures as being disrespectful of women, or as having no interest in them other than as sex objects and/or as trophies to collect as would a hunter.

I refer you to WP:WEASEL. Rintrah 00:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to imply misogyny is a collective hatred of all women. Is it possible that it may come in degress, and only manifest in regards to certain women. If Don Juan was a misogynist, did he feel that way about all women, or only the ones he desired sexually? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.203.252 (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Overcoming misogyny

Wouldn't it be a good idea to add a link to a website that discusses how to end feelings of misogyny? I've done a search for the last 45 minutes/hour and all I've found are self-pitying rants against men, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheRedVest (talk • contribs) 02:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Black America

Someone has disputed the following section, so I have moved it to talk to clear up issues, or decide whether it is notable enough, encyclopedic enough, and formatted to go live:

Misogyny in Black America

A reoccurring problem in black culture, misogyny against black women has become a serious problem. Perhaps made more popular by gangsta rap, this is not a recent problem. This exploitation began during slavery with the raping of black women and girls. An inferiority complex has developed over the years since then with negative references to commonly black features such as “nappy” or natural African hair, large hips and backsides and dark skin. The effects of this are seen in gangsta rap music and music videos where the ideal image of beauty is one that does not reflect African American qualities. Constant referencing to women as “ho’s” and “tricks” does nothing to improve the image.

While gangsta rap is a big contributor to this ever growing problem, perhaps a deeper look into American society will reveal that it is simply an extension of female exploitation that has been going since the beginning of time.

<http://www.unc.edu/~trevitte/Comp/hooks.htm>

And here is someone's comments that they added to the main article space:

"It's odd that someone went as far as to include this link (http://www.unc.edu/~trevitte/Comp/hooks.htm), and yet severely contradicted Bell Hooks' well put message. This section on Misogyny in Gangsta Rap is a perfect example of "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy", as described in the above link.

I'll list my points:

1. "Gangsta Rap" is being used as a code for hip-hop, black people, and young black men. The point being that this section is a further scape-goating of other oppressed people, and further avoidance of confronting "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy".
2. Ironically, to single out young African-American men as the sole or primary perpetrators of misogyny is in fact an act of misogyny via racism, whereas African-American men (those who's bodies are commonly conjured up when we hear the phrase "Gangsta Rap") are being typecast as the source of the misogyny. Therefore, African-American women, as the daughters, sisters, mothers, and companions of these men, would be disproportionately related, and in partnership with the perpetrators of misogyny (upon all women).
3. All one has to do to uncover the source of misogyny in "Gangsta Rap" is notice that there has been no shortage of positive and conscious hip-hop (via male and female artists) in the last couple decades, whilst the mainstream media and corporate sponsorship has continually ignored this segment, in favor of promoting and highlighting violence, sexism, and nihilism in the African-American community. One will quickly find that those who have chosen which parties (to misogyny) to focus on and exagerate, and which to ignore, are in fact the very same sources of this ongoing misogyny.
4. To state that Bell Hooks' question is one of whether misogyny is rooted in "Gangsta Rap" or has been here since the beginning of time is a perversion of her writing. Here again, "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" is not mentioned, but now it is being suggested that "time" itself is the source of misogyny.
5. It has been noted time and again that the oppression or scapegoating of oppressed people anywhere is connected to that of oppressed people everywhere. Primarily the oppressor maintains their oppression by the "Machiavellian" tactic of pitting one oppressed group against another. That is what the poster of the above segment has attempted to do."

- Self Suffice the Rapoet

-Andrew c 23:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you meant to assume good faith or some such thing? Hell, I'd be a hypocrite to hold you to that: just thought I'd mention it for the record. Yes, the sourced material seems much more in the poltical protectionist mode that you identify, the problems with this approach have, of course, nothing to do with this article. I think it becomes okay as long as the critic focuses on the publisher of the music, as in C Deloris Tucker, President of the national Congress of Black Women, denouncing 'Time Warner's involvment with "violent and misogynistic" music lyrics.' Ogbar, 'Slouching Toward Bork: The Culture Wars and Self-Criticism in Hip-Hop Music', Journal of Black Studies > Vol. 30, No. 2 (Nov., 1999), pp. 165. (And I realise that Ogbar, like most of the academy, goes along with the above commentary: it's just where the quote comes from...). That way we can ironically see (oh dear: meta-irony?) the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy at fault, as in everything, and we can be safely within the canon. If you're interested in pursuing the actual connection itself for the purpose of the article, try looking at C. Delores Tucker and Calvin O. Butts perhaps - since it becomes more difficult for the mostly irrelevent race card to be played (though, of course, not impossible). Jgda 23:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• interesting - i will collect my thoughts about it

Shoopshoop 02:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Misogyny in Literature

Exactly how useful is it, even if tenuous citations are found, to level accusations of misogyny at fictional characters? It's problematic enough doing so with authors but heck, isn't the standard way of going about this to use the fictional character as symptomatic of cultural norms during textual production (with of course no consideration for irony, thematic depth or social relativism)? Jgda 23:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The way it is now, the section presents good content for a healthy laughter. I think, in the very same manner it may include pretty much all ancient mythology... I think to improve the article in a constructive manner, distinction should be made between misogyny and politically correct forms of thought, speech and expression. Suggesting removal of the section as it is now.Lost Angel 12:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Even in terms of historical context, I don't find Hamlet to ever be especially misogynistic... The section seems to be product of personal interpretation and should be deleted. Betina 17:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Section removed until meaningful content is found to fill it up with. Obviously just about any book would pass for misogynist and/or misandric if we include literature, where someone says something bad about a woman or a man or behaves badly in their regard. There should be a bit of misogynist ideology or appeals involved. Gawain cursing a woman who cheated him is hardly a suitable example, same as Hamlet exclaiming "frailty, thy name is woman" is hardly doing so out of general woman-hatred.Lost Angel 23:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Background

Added some info and split Philosphy & Religion in two as an attempt to make this article a bit more solid, actually citing references from Jack Holland's book and the Bible. It is merely a starting point so please bear with me - edit it, put it in a more organized manner - this article is begging for some massive reviewing.Betina 22:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OR

This page is full of OR. Take this passage: "Other forms of misogyny may be more subtle. Some misogynists may simply be prejudiced against all women, or may hate women who do not fall into one or more acceptable categories. Entire cultures may be said to be misogynist if they treat women in ways that can be seen as harmful. Examples include forcing women to tend to all domestic responsibilities, demanding silence from a woman, or beating a woman. Subscribers to one model, the mother/whore dichotomy, hold that women can only be "mothers" or "whores." Another variant is the virgin/whore dichotomy, in which women who do not adhere to a saintly standard of moral purity are considered "whores."" Where are the citations for this? 69.86.156.243 14:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The above madonna/whore dichotomy could be sited to Gilbert and Gubar's The Mad Woman in the Attic but the whole piece is a synthesis and yes original research. In fact as pointed out above by a number of different posters teh page is awash with OR. The ideas are fine and it would make an interesting essay but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This page needs to record the major mainstream views on what misogyny is and where it comes from and what might cause it - nothing else. This is just not the place for writing essays on misogyny--Cailil ^talk 14:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Word's origin

It could be mentioned that misogyny comes from a greek word that "miso-" means in greek "hate" and "-gyny", "woman"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.88.124 (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So...the Greeks hated women? 144.92.84.206 (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)