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.— Berit Brogaard D.M.Sci., Ph.D
“What is Misogyny, Anyway?”
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.— “Kate Manne: The Shock Collar That Is Misogyny“
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.
Because it is all men, actually.— Aaminah Khan & Melissa A. Fabello
“Think Itâ€™s #NotAllMen? These 4 Facts Prove Youâ€™re Just Plain Wrong“
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.
Ah Muslims. Say what you will about them – and much can be said, little to none of it good – but accept the fact that they’ve always been good merchants who knew what goods could be sold for the most shekels.
Omar Is Taking His Train To The Souq
It’s truly variety of goods available for purchase in the Muslims’ souqs (markets) is truly amazing. Where else can you find a Muslim male leading his train of women to market for sale?
Pranav Bhide of ad the agency Taproot has created a series of pictures depicting the Hindu Goddesses: Lakshmi (à¤²à¤•à¥à¤·à¥à¤®à¥€), Saraswati (à¤¸à¤°à¤¸à¥à¤µà¤¤à¥€), and Durga (à¤¦à¥à¤°à¥à¤—à¤¾) as victims of domestic violence to benefit Save Our Sisters, an recent anti-domestic violence initiative of Save The Children India which focuses on prevention and repatriation of sexually trafficked women and children in India.
Each of the three ads is accompanied by the same text:
Pray that we never see this day. Today more than 68% of women in India are victims of domestic violence. Tomorrow it seems like no woman shall be spared. Not even the ones we pray too.
Taproot’s campaign was created by blending traditional hand-painted Indian art with modern-day photography using real models and has won multiple awards at different ad festivals.
If you’re Pagan, these ads will be eye-catching and a bit disturbing. For Hindu’s their blatantly shocking. Lakshmi who Hindus once beseeched on bended knee for good fortune now sits sad-eyed on a lotus with a bloodied nose. Saraswatiâ€™s infinite wisdom and knowledge were no defense against a black-eye. Durga, who once danced upon the demon (Asura) Mahishasuraâ€™s corpse now stands bruised, battered and teary-eyed, begging for our protection.
The images of Lakshmi and Saraswati are directly analogous to depicting the Blessed Mother Mary as beaten and bloodied. The image of Durga is a bit different because Durga is a Goddess of War and the defender of Heaven (Svarga). Showing Her as beaten and cowed is an implication that Heaven itself has been beaten and conquered by the growing violence against women in India.
That’s, however, a somewhat problematically mixed message. It may shock and shame men, which was its intent, but it also undermines the Indian women’s religious images of feminine authority by reducing three of their major goddesses to victims and stripping them of their awesome and often perilous divine power.
This may also be an indicator of how far the sad and shameful “domestication” of the Hindu Gods and Goddesses has gone in Post-Colonial India.
In Indian schools the now they tell children that when Shiva killed his wife Parvarti’s son, Ganesha she cried. They blatantly ignore that she also made ready to destroy the entire universe in her grief and rage and relented only when Shiva agreed to resurrect her son and make him a God.
At least Taproot was wise enough no to attempt to depict the Samrajni Kali Ma (à¤•à¤¾à¤³à¥€) as a victim of any form of violence, especially domestic violence.
à¤¸à¤°à¥à¤µà¤®à¤™à¥à¤—à¤²à¤®à¤¾à¤™à¥à¤—à¤²à¥à¤¯à¥‡ à¤¶à¤¿à¤µà¥‡ à¤¸à¤°à¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¸à¤¾à¤§à¤¿à¤•à¥‡ à¥¤ à¤¶à¤°à¤£à¥à¤¯à¥‡ à¤¤à¥à¤°à¥à¤¯à¤®à¥à¤¬à¤•à¥‡ à¤—à¥Œà¤°à¤¿ à¤¨à¤¾à¤°à¤¾à¤¯à¤£à¤¿ à¤¨à¤®à¥‹à¤½à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥ à¤¤à¥‡ à¥¥
à¥ à¤œà¤¯à¤‚à¤¤à¥€ à¤®à¤‚à¤—à¤³ à¤•à¤¾à¤³à¥€ à¤à¤¦à¥à¤°à¤•à¤•à¤¾à¤³à¥€ à¤•à¤ªà¤¾à¤²à¤¿à¤¨à¥€ à¥¤ à¤¦à¥à¤°à¥à¤—à¤¾ à¤•à¥à¤·à¤®à¤¾ à¤¶à¤¿à¤µà¤¾ à¤§à¤¾à¤¤à¥à¤°à¥€ à¤¸à¥à¤µà¤¾à¤¹à¤¾ à¤¸à¥à¤µà¤§à¤¾ à¤¨à¤®à¥‹à¤½à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥â€à¤¤à¥‡ à¥¥
It would be foolish to attempt to paint Kali as some form of abused Bhartiya Naari (“Traditional Indian Woman”). Nobody would believe or countenance that Kali, who sprung from Durga’s forehead and was made by Her rage and frustration at not being able to defeat the demon general Raktabija and his army could ever be a victim.
Of course, a follow-up campaign showing the possible repercussions of domestic violence against women in India featuring the Samrajni Kali Ma might be a powerful message…
For as long as I can remember, and that’s getting to be a long time indeed, the Liberals and Progressives have ranted about the military-industrial complex and the various American arms manufacturers. They’ve, in their racism, ageism, and sexism, described them as evil, murderous entities which are poisoned by testosterone and run by those horrid Evil Old White men.
One has to wonder if some part of the Liberals’ and Progressives’ screed will end or change now that three of the top six defense firms are headed by women.
Linda Hudson is CEO of BAE Systems’ US operations; Marillyn Hewson is the new CEO of Lockheed Martin; and Phebe Novakovic is the new CEO of General Dynamics. All three of these new defense industry CEOs are women and all three happen to be White.
So will the Liberals and Progressives alter their rants against the firms that produce the material needed to keep Americans both safe and with access to their needed resources, or will they label Linda Hudson, Marillyn Hewson, and Phebe Novakovic as failures as women or as traitors to the gender because they lead corporations “traditionally” headed by those evil, warmongering and war profiteering Old White Men? It’s a bit of a quandary and impossible nigh on impossible to predict what they’ll do.
On one hand, Liberals and Progressives have been quick to deride and attack any Black who got off their plantation and assimilated into America as an Oreo, Uncle Tom, Sell Out, and race traitor. It be easy for them to apply the same “niggerization” to women who rose to power in the defense industry.
On the other hand, the Liberals and Progressives are deeply tied to the Feminists, which might cause them a logical frisson since Feminism is predicated on women becoming men and, if possible, supplanting them. Hence, it might be difficult for them to attack Hudson, Hewson, and Novakovic for both political and ideological reasons.
Or, on yet another hand, will they just ignore these inconvenient women and continue their diatribes about the Evil Old White Men and their murderous machismo? This is the outcome that I expect since Liberals and Progressive place the truth second to the message.