There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means as De Tocqueville describes it, ‘a new form of servitude.’
It is best for fathers to teach their sons what and who they will face in this life. After all, these lessons are fundamental to a right-thinking society.
And, it’s not as if it takes much effort. It’s not like there’s not almost always some “perfect” example of our domestic enemies’ stupidity, insanity, and hypocrisy up in our faces, doing their worst to teach our nation’s children exactly the wrong lessons!
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 itâ€™s a way to keep women in their place. Misogyny, she writes, is â€œthe system that operates within a patriarchal social order to police and enforce womenâ€™s subordination and to uphold male dominance.â€ Like a shock collar used to keep dogs behind an invisible fence, misogyny, she argues, aims to keep womenâ€”those who are well trained as well as those who are unrulyâ€”in line. The power of Manneâ€™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 â€œNot All Menâ€ Argument,
Letâ€™s start here, even though this should go without saying: We donâ€™t think that all men are inherently abusive or dangerous. Plenty of men arenâ€™t. There are men that we love very much â€“ 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 â€œnot all menâ€ â€“ because, on a basic level, we agree with you.
But the socialization of men is such that even a good man â€“ a supportive man, a respectful man, a trusted man â€“ 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 donâ€™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 â€“ any space â€“ as a man, you carry with yourself the threat of harm.
Of course, in most cases, itâ€™s not a conscious thing. We donâ€™t think that most men move through the world thinking about how they can hurt us. We donâ€™t believe The Patriarchy™ to be a boardroom full of men posing the question â€œHow can we fuck over gender minorities today?â€ You would be hard-pressed to find a feminist who actively believes that.
But what makes (yes) all men potentially unsafe â€“ what makes (yes) all men suspect in the eyes of feminism â€“ is the normalized violating behaviors that theyâ€™ve learned, which they then perform uncritically.
Make no mistake: When you use the phrase â€œnot all menâ€ â€“ or otherwise buy into the myth of it â€“ youâ€™re giving yourself and others a pass to continue performing the socially sanctioned violence of â€œmasculinityâ€ without consequence, whether or not thatâ€™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 â€“ and that of other men. But you canâ€™t do that if youâ€™re stuck in the space of believing that â€œnot all menâ€ is a valid argument.
So we wanted to call you in, well-meaning men, to talk about these four points that youâ€™re missing when you claim â€œnot all menâ€ 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.
Joe Biden’s – aka Creepy Uncle Joe – current woes are actually lamentable, though entirely expected, or almost so. It was likely only a matter of time and “usefulness” before some woman or set of women voiced outrage over Biden’s very well established and documented misunderstanding of people’s, especially women’s, personal space.
So, now Ole Joe is embroiled in debacle and the Left is seemingly split upon the matter, with some siding with Biden and other’s reviling him. And the debacle is exacerbated by both Biden not being able to say he didn’t do it and by his utter inability not to gaffe when put under pressure. And that is, to me at least, both lamentable and very indicative of some of our nation’s current problems.
Yes, Biden has a long history of invading people’s personal spaces and making them uncomfortable. But also yes, all reports indicate that he is a kind man who never once meant anything “appropriateness” by that behavior and held neither disrespect for- or ill will towards anyone he acted in that way towards. And #IBelieveHim! 😉
Yet, according to the Feminists and their enablers, motive and intent don’t matter at all. All that matters is how the woman or womyn feels about whatever happened. Indeed, by the same rules, any argument by a man about his intentions is just “mansplaining,” “patriarchal condescension,” and “enabling Rape Culture.”
But that just brings up the nasty, tangled knot of hypocrisy among the Left over this sort of issue. So many of them made is stridently clear that they “believed” the utterly unconfirmed and refuted accusations against Justice Kavanaugh but believe Biden to the point of accusing the women who complained of being political operatives. But, at the same time, so many of them who signal as true believers of #MeToo, being apparently as against Biden as they were Kavanaugh, seem to be associated with other 2020 Democrat candidates.
Yeah, it’s a lamentable mess. But at least it’s not our problem. It’s the Democrats problem.
The upcoming Women’s March in Eureka, CA has been been cancelled by its organizers because it was Too White. After meeting with various SJW cells, it’s organizers chose to cancel the event because it participants did meet the non-White racial quotas needed to “properly” represent the demographics of Humboldt County.
Humboldt County organizers and supporters of the annual Womenâ€™s March have decided to not hold a rally in Eureka on January 19th. This decision was made after many conversations between local social-change organizers and supporters of the march.
The local organizers are continuing to meet and discuss how to broaden representation in the organizing committee to create an event that represents and supports peoples who live here in Humboldt. Up to this point, the participants have been overwhelmingly white, lacking representation from several perspectives in our community. Instead of pushing forward with crucial voices absent, the organizing team will take time for more outreach.
Now me? I’m forced to wonder if those “many conversations” with “social-change” groups was more akin to dealing with threats from those groups, be it counter-protests or otherwise. After all, this would have been the #PussyHats’ 3rd year of their march in Eureka. So it’s not like there’s a real problem internally to this womyns’ group.
Also, I’m really not sure what they think that can do to “darken” their march. It’s small, normally having only between 5000 – 8000 participants and Humbolt County is, like most of America, predominantly White. Indeed, at 82.7% White, it’s Whiter than the national average of 72.4%.
Humboldt County, CA Demographics
Frankly, it just sounds to me as if these hand-wringing and angsty Feminists are just suffering from an “Identity Crisis.” 😆 Then, “Identity” is core these days to ideologies that lead people into groups like the Women’s March, even though it has almost nothing to do with their supposed mission.
But please! Who are these people who identify as “Other?” Are they Martians? Romulans? Squidoids From the 3rd moon of Gliese 581g?
Reflections From A Murky Pond is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.