I believe that, while fundamentally true, Descarte’s famous philosophical statement, “cogito, ergo sum” can be more practically, in today’s world, be expressed as, “I complain, bitch, whine, and get offended, therefore I am.” We will seemingly bitch about anything and everything, even when –or, possibly especially when – doing so detracts or distracts from what is enjoyable or beautiful.
A perfect example of this is Japanese Rope Bondage. Many call it Shibari, while many others call it Kinbaku. And both camps are quite quick and vicious in their attacks upon the other. Also, since this is a Western (gaijin) issue, there are also the normal pack of SJWs stridently denouncing both camps for Cultural Appropriation. 🙄
One of the sad facts of this “woke” world is that Misogyny is like Racism; certain sorts, for their own purposes, “Humpty Dumpty” the term. I.e., those sorts will and do ignore any normative, objective definition of “Misogyny” in favor of their own agenda-driven interpretation of it. Anything is else is rejected.
You see, in the minds of feminists, you don’t have to hate or dislike women to be a misogynist.
All it takes for these sorts to label you as a misogynist is for you to fail to fully agree with whatever the current “point” is that any feminist is trying to make at that moment. It doesn’t even take any act – by word, deed, or facial expression/body language – to be labeled as such. It only takes not making it perfectly clear that you wholeheartedly and with guilt and shame in your heart agree with the point being made.
My initial question was “Is misogyny simply hatred toward women?” The answer is a loud and clear “no.” A misogynist is not simply a person who hates women, it’s a person who does, or would, hate women who are not subordinate, women with power and status, women who can stand up for themselves and make their own decisions.
And yes, this womyn isn’t really a crackpot. She’s a regular contributor to Psychology Today, which is generally considered a respectable professional outlet. Hence, since she’s so published, one can’t claim that hers is an outlier position at all. This is the mainstream feminist position.
And, of course, it’s Dr. Broggard’s sort who are the sole arbiters of what hating women who are not subordinate, women with power and status, women who can stand up for themselves and make their own decisions looks like. Indeed, they only accept their own definitions for: hate, power, status, standing up for themselves, and making their own decisions.
As in all such “Social Justice” matters, Humpty Dumpty reigns supreme.
And They Do Say It’s All Men
Yes, You can forget any idea of claiming to any of this sort that you’re not one of the minority of men who behaves badly towards women. Just being a man is enough to taint you with misogyny. You’re only “out” is to prove to them that you’re ashamed of yourself, your gender, and society; agree with all their points; and are taking concrete steps to further womyn’s success at the cost of your own and other men’s.
Manne tosses out the common thinking that misogyny is equivalent to despising all women, and instead offers that it’s a way to keep women in their place. Misogyny, she writes, is “the system that operates within a patriarchal social order to police and enforce women’s subordination and to uphold male dominance.” Like a shock collar used to keep dogs behind an invisible fence, misogyny, she argues, aims to keep women—those who are well trained as well as those who are unruly—in line. The power of Manne’s definition comes from its ability to bring together various behaviors and events under one umbrella.
Yes, it’s another call to action to end the “Patriarchy.” So, of course, #YesAllMen are guilty of being complicit in it just by the very fact that they’re men. In their minds, all men were born and raised as misogynists, meaning that all men are complicit but no man can be innocent.
Some evidence of this from Everyday Feminism:
Dear Well-Meaning Men Who Believe Themselves to Be Safe, Thereby Legitimizing the “Not All Men” Argument,
Let’s start here, even though this should go without saying: We don’t think that all men are inherently abusive or dangerous. Plenty of men aren’t. There are men that we love very much – men around whom we feel mostly safe and unthreatened; men who, in fact, support, respect, and take care of us on familial, platonic, romantic, and sexual levels. Not every man has violated us individually; for most of us, there are plenty of men that we trust. We know what you mean by “not all men” – because, on a basic level, we agree with you.
But the socialization of men is such that even a good man – a supportive man, a respectful man, a trusted man – has within him the potential for violence and harm because these behaviors are normalized through patriarchy.
And as such, we know that even the men that we love, never mind random men who we don’t know, have the potential to be dangerous. Surely, all people have that potential. But in a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors, the former learn to fear the latter as a defense mechanism.
So when you enter a space – any space – as a man, you carry with yourself the threat of harm.
Of course, in most cases, it’s not a conscious thing. We don’t think that most men move through the world thinking about how they can hurt us. We don’t believe The Patriarchy™ to be a boardroom full of men posing the question “How can we fuck over gender minorities today?” You would be hard-pressed to find a feminist who actively believes that.
But what makes (yes) all men potentially unsafe – what makes (yes) all men suspect in the eyes of feminism – is the normalized violating behaviors that they’ve learned, which they then perform uncritically.
Make no mistake: When you use the phrase “not all men” – or otherwise buy into the myth of it – you’re giving yourself and others a pass to continue performing the socially sanctioned violence of “masculinity” without consequence, whether or not that’s your intention.
In truth, the only thing approaching defiance against this kind of violence is to constantly check and question your own learned entitlement – and that of other men. But you can’t do that if you’re stuck in the space of believing that “not all men” is a valid argument.
So we wanted to call you in, well-meaning men, to talk about these four points that you’re missing when you claim “not all men” as a way to eschew responsibility for patriarchal oppression.
It’s really just an example of how exactly misogyny is like racism. It’s a nebulous thing, defined solely by those who feel that they’re victims of it or who are those people’s “allies,” and is set up specifically and deliberately as a inherent, endemic, and profound systemic problem that labels huge groups of individuals as being complicit while allow none to escape it taint.
Men don’t even have to do anything to be treated as oppressors. We always carry with us the “threat of harm.”
Oh yeah! And don’t – as I been doing the whole post-issue forth any dissent whatsoever from the feminists’ doctrine and dogma. As the 1st Extrapolation (moving it out of internet comments) of Lewis’ Law states: comments about feminism justify feminism.
Dear Leftists, Liberals, Progressives, Feminists, Queer and Trans Activists, and Blacktivists – Really! Just about all you who are likely Democrat voters,
I’ll be Deplorable… If you want me to be.
I’ll be Ignorant… If you want me to be.
I’ll be Selfish… If you want me to be.
I’ll be Racist… If you want me to be.
I’ll be Sexist and Misogynist… If you want me to be.
I’ll be Homophobic… If you want me to be.
I’ll be Transphobic… If you want me to be.
I’ll be Islamophobic… If you want me to be.
I’ll be Xenophobic… If you want me to be.
I’ll be a Fascist… If you want me to be.
I’ll even be a Nazi… If you want me to be and you buy me the uniform and paraphernalia. 😉
And, of course, I’m not being accommodating. Nor is this really just a paroxysm of sarcasm on my part, though it is heavily laced with sarcasm. I just accept that I’m going to “be” whatever your sort(s) decide that I am since you’ve developed, promulgated, and/or adopted such definitions of these terms that make it so that I am all of these things by your criteria.
Sincerely, A White American Man
And therein is the sad truth. Americans’ domestic enemies operate within a framework of narrative and lived experience, not facts, and they created their “Liberalexicon” accordingly. Hence, I and the rest of us are in their minds exactly whatever bad thing that believe us to be. They’re the scions of Humpty Dumpty and When they use a word, it means just what they choose it to mean—neither more nor less.
And, My Fellow Americans, remember that the majority of our people’s domestic enemies believe in these ever-broadening and ever-shifting definitions and, hence, truly believe that we are, each and every one of us, whatever “bad thing” that their specific hatred is pointed at any given moment. So they cannot be reasoned with since who could expect anyone to reason with or accept any argument from such deplorable people as they “know” us to be.
A contronym is a word that with two opposite meanings. It is also known as an autantonym. The Left’s most glaring contronym is “tolerance.” It’s also why the #WalkAway movement among Leftist, i.e., Likely Democrat voters, is a thing at all.