August 25, 2017

"There's a certain kind of feminism that overlaps with misogyny."

"I would find it fascinating to read a post of yours that researches and presents that idea."

A Meadhouse conversation.

This is just a post referring to an unwritten post. I'll give this the tag "unwritten books," because even more than not writing books and not writing blog posts full of research and extended, persuasive arguments, I don't like making new tags.

67 comments:

Ken B said...

Need a new tag, "Uncreated tags".

Meade said...

Just like a woman...

tcrosse said...

Tag. You're It.

CStanley said...

The entire political movement of feminism is misogynistic in my view.

And I think the question raised recently by Ayana Hirsi Ali is relevant: "Cui bono?" Do leaders of the feminist movement really want to help women, including conservative women and/or those who choose traditional roles, or do they exist to profit off of the anxieties of liberal masculine guilt?

robother said...

Who wrote, who wrote, who wrote the Book of Love?
"The purpose of a man is to love a woman, and the purpose of a woman is to love a man..." (Oh wait, that's the Game of Love; maybe the Book of Love is unwritten.)

jwl said...

For me, men come to mind when I hear word 'jerk' or 'blowhard' while 'feminist' now makes me think of unpleasant women, equal to male jerks.

Lyssa said...

I definitely agree with that, and it's one of the reasons that I don't think that the word "feminism" has much meaning or usefulness now. Like Meade, I would love to read a post by you on this.

(I assume that Meade said the second sentence. Looking back at the post, I guess that's not entirely clear.)

EDH said...

"I'm gonna be rich...famous... and burn-off my skin tags."

MikeR said...

Is it a zero-sum game? In that case, feminism should require misogyny. Resources that could be used for fish are going into making bicycles. Down with bicycles!
Or do men and women contribute vital parts of a family, a community, a society? How can we help them all to achieve their full potential?

robother said...

So the neologism "Ms" stands for misogynist? Now, its all starting to make sense.

mockturtle said...

I think there is an element of self loathing in feminists just as there is in many activist gays and black protesters. They are trying to convince themselves as much as to persuade others.

Again to paraphrase Shaw, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, protest."

rehajm said...

They seem mutually exclusive. One could wrap the flag of one or the other around something else but it's still something else.

MikeR said...

"Lyssa". Is that short for Lysistrata? Timely.

Ralph L said...

Let's send our young women out to be raped and killed by our enemies!
Hoorah.

TV land could do a better job with damsels in distress. They're either preposterously effective ninjas, or they conk the bad guy once and run away to be cornered again instead of finishing him off when they had the chance.

And then there's the frequent total loss of composure.

Bruce Hayden said...

"Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility, androcentrism, patriarchy, male privilege, belittling of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification."

Pretty sexist term, from the view of this masculinist. Yes, there is a female equivalent, rarely heard of course: "misandry".

But, yes, there are women who don't much like other women. Not to the hate level. They aren't self-loathing. Just don't like other women.

rhhardin said...

For it is the man who believes in the truth of woman, in woman-truth. And in truth, they too are men, those women feminists so derided by Nietzsche. Feminism is nothing but the operation of a woman who aspires to be like a man. And in order to resemble the masculine dogmatic philosopher this woman lays claim - just as much claim as he - to truth, to science and objectivity in all their castrated delusions of virility. Feminism too seeks to castrate. It wants a castrated woman.

Derrida _Spurs_ p.64-65

Guys would enjoy _Spurs_ (skip the preface written by somebody else); Derrida's first translater, Gayatri Spivak, was angered by _Spurs_.

Women should get _The Postcard_ instead. Possibly might enjoy _Spurs_ if they can see the pro-woman point of Nietzshe's misogyny, not a certainty.

Gahrie said...

But, yes, there are women who don't much like other women. Not to the hate level. They aren't self-loathing. Just don't like other women.

I don't know about that. Most Leftwing women I know hate Rightwing women with a passion.

Ralph L said...

How are the "selected tags" selected?

Unsaid things and unwritten books end mine right now.

Gahrie said...

If women really believed that 20% of women are raped in college, it would be a pretty hateful act to send your daughter to college.

Big Mike said...

Gahrie's right, and it's why it will be a very long time before a woman is elected president. Left wing women hate right wing women, and put them down hard. When a left wing woman is running for office there are ritualistic calls for female solidarity, but the right wing women remember.

jwl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jwl said...

Feminism and misogyny overlap because they both believe females are weaker sex who need lots of help.

sparrow said...

There's something to this idea, and you'd likely be good at it Ann as it would require someone with knowledge of feminist arguments and history to do it well.
Superficially I see feminists frequently harass women who do not want to live the lifestyle they champion, especially if their choices are traditional. It reminds me of the hostility to conservative African Americans (Like Justice Thomas being excluded from lists in Ebony etc). In other words, feminists are all about empowering women as long as they are leftist women because progressive politics >> feminism.

jwl said...

Nikki Haley first female president?

Gahrie said...

Nikki Haley first female president?

I like what I have seen of her so far...

Sebastian said...

Sure, much of feminism is a form misogyny. But politics trumps gender. Women are weak and need special protection, except when they are strong conservatives, in which case they need to be destroyed.

Sebastian said...

"Nikki Haley first female president?" I wish. But it's Oprah's for the taking.

tcrosse said...

Nikki Haley first female president?

If only she could run against Warren, as a real Indian against a false one.

Jay Elink said...

Yes, there is a female equivalent, rarely heard of course: "misandry"
***********

Didn't Grey Worm go down on Misandry a few weeks ago in GOT?

Rick said...

"There's a certain kind of feminism that overlaps with misogyny." "I would find it fascinating to read a post of yours that researches and presents that idea."

This post has been written just not by you:

Slate Star Codex

The summary is that certain feminists believe receiving unfair treatment justifies their own unfair treatment which they freely translate to anyone in the out-group. Note the nonsensical "equivalence" framing required to justify these attacks and recall their recent use in other (equally inappropriate) circumstances.

n.n said...

Female chauvinists, as their male chauvinist counterparts, are in competition with men as well as women... and their babies, too.

Howard said...

It's not hate Gahrie, it's indifference. Left leaning people are having too much fun, making too much money and are too beautiful to have any sort of feelings for self-hating females dominated by their conservative cuck husbands.

Gahrie said...

It's not hate Gahrie, it's indifference.

The Left isn't indifferent about anything. In fact they are obsessed with everything...making everything political. That's their second biggest problem behind their massive ignorance.

Owen said...

I like rhhardin's citation of Derrida (maybe I'll get into that, but the prose looks pretty daunting). What I take away from that, and some other comments above, is that feminists and misogynists are alike in their objectification and categorization of a collection of individuals. Each of us has multiple attributes and qualities, sex being only one. When a child picks up the hammer of grievance and rhetoric, however, everything becomes a nail. What I find tedious and offensive about the feminists (and misogynists, and others who obsessively distort and generalize to serve some internal fury) is the monotony of the argument. You know at once where they are going to go. Every point is the same. The only difference is the convolutions, endlessly Baroque twists and bends to stretch the theory to fit the facts.

Ann Althouse said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ann Althouse said...

My idea has more to do with the way some feminism sets up a characterization of women in order to plead in their favor, but the characterization is negative.

Howard said...

Why is it about conservatives that makes them see boogiemen under every bed and in every closet. Fear and the resulting paranoia is the greatest enemy of mental health. Aside from the left extremist media darling press-whores, no one gives a fuck about you right-wing trogs. If anything, the only thought is pity.

Ann Althouse said...

I deleted my comment because I didn't notice how long that piece Rick linked to went on. It's very long. I read a page of it an found it badly written and not interesting. So tl:dr.

Rick does summarize for us: "The summary is that certain feminists believe receiving unfair treatment justifies their own unfair treatment which they freely translate to anyone in the out-group."

That's not the point I would want to make.

"Note the nonsensical "equivalence" framing required to justify these attacks and recall their recent use in other (equally inappropriate) circumstances."

I can't note it because I'm not going to read it, but the phrase "nonsensical 'equivalence'" reminds me of the annoying "false equivalence" talking point about Charlottesville. I think things can be compared even if they aren't exactly the same. It's only a flat insistence that 2 things are exactly alike the merits the adjective "false" or "nonsensical."

The unwritten post of mine is not about feminists attacking anybody other than women themselves. That is, I want to examine the hatred of women inherent in the claims and demands that are made by some feminists.

sparrow said...

So the idea is that feminists denigrate women by characterizing them as victims/weak/etc in order to gain leverage/sympathy? I can see that it's a kind of rationale for why they need more power etc. If women understood their actual power they might not feel the need to support the feminist approach.

Gahrie said...

Why is it about conservatives that makes them see boogiemen under every bed and in every closet. Fear and the resulting paranoia is the greatest enemy of mental health. Aside from the left extremist media darling press-whores, no one gives a fuck about you right-wing trogs. If anything, the only thought is pity.

Where the hell have you been the last ten months?

tcrosse said...

If women understood their actual power they might not feel the need to support the feminist approach.

So argues Paglia.

Ralph L said...

I want to examine the hatred of women inherent in the claims and demands that are made by some feminists.
All I can think of is unintended harm and belittling of women. You can binge drink and have casual sex like a man, hang out in dark alleys, climb in submarines, etc., but a dirty joke will hurt you.

Ann Althouse said...

"So the idea is that feminists denigrate women by characterizing them as victims/weak/etc in order to gain leverage/sympathy?

Something like that. You make it sound so obvious that it's hardly worth saying. I think there's more to it than just that women are "weak" and more than that feminists are asking for "sympathy." Also it's not just the arguments that are openly made, but the underlying motivation, which is always hard to get at. But since feminists accuse other people of being misogynist, even when those other people aren't openly expressing hatred toward women, it's at least fair turnabout to examine what might be really going on in their head.

mockturtle said...

tcrosse writes: If women understood their actual power they might not feel the need to support the feminist approach.

So argues Paglia.


And she is right.

"The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings."

boycat said...

Inasmuch as radical feminism is dominated by lesbians, they have no interest in, and are often hostile to, issues fundamentally integral to the lives of heterosexual women.

sparrow said...

The mind of feminist is uncharted country to me.

sparrow said...

I would suggest your thesis could be much broader in that all groups that play up their victimhood/historical oppression can be denigrated by those that putatively represent them. For example I think affirmative action is insulting to minorities.

Mark said...

There's a certain kind of feminism that overlaps with misogyny

How about the feminism that hates women's bodies and wants to suppress and destroy the most unique aspect of a woman which differentiates her from men?

Abortion is intensely anti-woman.

Mark said...

That strain of radical feminist thought that basically says that true womanhood is being like a man.

Mark said...

Then there is that collision with transgenderism that says that men can be women too. And that we should applaud as the "better woman" those men who beat women in sports.

That blows the whole premise of feminism right out the window.

Rick said...

but the phrase "nonsensical 'equivalence'" reminds me of the annoying "false equivalence" talking point about Charlottesville. I think things can be compared even if they aren't exactly the same. It's only a flat insistence that 2 things are exactly alike the merits the adjective "false" or "nonsensical."

That's exactly the point I was making. Only the framing as "equivalence" justifies the turnabout treatment whether it is criticizing Trump or claiming men cannot be treated unfairly. But that framing is nonsensical - but ubiquitous. Everyone should immediately question any such framing.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Howard said...
It's not hate Gahrie, it's indifference. Left leaning people are having too much fun, making too much money and are too beautiful to have any sort of feelings for self-hating females dominated by their conservative cuck husbands."

Uh, huh, Howie, sure. That's why That's why some fun-filled leftist held up a "Rape Melania" sign in front of Trump Tower after the election. That's two "beautiful" college professors raged at Ivanka on a plane. That's why leftist antifas pepper-sprayed a woman wearing a red cap in Berkeley. That's why Michelle Malkin gets bombarded with racist hate mail and tweets after every TV appearance.

As for cucks, a liberal woman wrote an anonymous article a while back, "The Elephant in the Bedroom," comparing Democrat and Republican men in the sack (she clearly had quite a bit of experience) and she stated Republican men were far better lovers and it wasn't a contest. Florence King, a bisexual humorist, made the same observation. And, although my experience is limited compared to those women, I agree. Conservative men are much more manly.

So - who are you calling cuck?

LOL

mockturtle said...

boycat speculates: Inasmuch as radical feminism is dominated by lesbians, they have no interest in, and are often hostile to, issues fundamentally integral to the lives of heterosexual women.

My observation of the feminist movement is that, aside from the lesbians, who are a minority, most of these 'feminists' are really women who don't want real power. They do want to carp and complain about how they want it and are denied it.

Tarrou said...

I think there's a few ways in which this idea could be correct.

One is that the worldview of feminism requires women to be the endless perfect victim of rapacious all-consuming patriarchy.

Another is that feminism by and large measures "success" and "equality" by how many women are doing traditionally male things, rather than by raising the level of status accorded to women's interests and pursuits. It adopts male standards of success.

Finally, there's the "Baptists and bootleggers" aspect whereby both feminists and the hard right are very interested in maintaining those advantages women had under traditional systems, even as they disagree over whether to dismantle the benefits men had. So men and women must be equal in all respects, divorce on demand, but alimony stays!

Howard said...

Is it hatred or infantilization?

rhhardin said...

Or read a few pages of Derrida and Christine McDonald's _Choreographies_

google books

The trick with reading Derrida is read slowly and pay attention but be willing to continue past what does not at the moment make sense.

The reason to continue is that there are good lines, perfect lines, now and then, sort of prolix zingers.

Stop when it's been too long between zingers.

There's a lot of postmodern jargon, which is not the nonsense it appears, but there are still zingers.

rhhardin said...

_Spurs_ is different in beaing pretty easy to read.

Feste said...

The unwritten post of mine is not about feminists attacking anybody other than women themselves. That is, I want to examine the hatred of women inherent in the claims and demands that are made by some feminists

Maybe I misread Meade’s request as asking for new research beyond your current convictions? With “interesting” (Meade’s word) referring to new discoveries, as in the new and fun discovery of the Dumpster clue in the crossword, or perhaps overlapping with the attention-asking theme from yesterday about protests and counterprotests affecting and changing each other, and with preexisting frames and conclusions lain aside?

Promiscuous females courting promiscuous female altruistic attentions need not get stuck in hatred while traversing it. Hatred as a potential-state could act out as a eudemonic female virtue (“not my daughter, you bitch!,” Mother Weasley to Bellatrix Lestrange).

Beats me.

It seems from my pov that the multiplication and then differentiation of desirable and undesirable ‘feminist’ traits progresses on and on indefinitely.

And will until feminists reach a pragmatic consensus in-house that undesirable female on female hatred, if not eliminated, has been minimized enough to make self-inflicted feminist wounds a rarity?

Rusty said...

Would it kill ya to once in awhile buy dinner?

rhhardin said...

Derrida's take is that male science-like theory-like stuff that men get from liking to abstract from details results in an inconsistent system, necessarily. It's not a mistake that produces inconsistency but the system.

Women add complexity and are not much interested in the systemization.

What if, Nietzsche asks, truth is a woman.

Getting back to feminism, acting like a man puts women into the same trap as men are in, except women don't enjoy it.

To see a nice woman's criticism of male philosophy see Vicki Hearne's "Wittgenstein's Lion" in _Animal Happiness_. She's interested in and following male philosophers (Kant and Wittgenstein) but adding a woman's commentary.

In "What Is His Name?" in the same book she does Derrida and Stanley Cavell, who she says are both unversed in dogs but not as dog blind as most philosophers.

The style is being unimpressed with the man's philosophical system but interested enough to branch out from it.

Call it making a place.

A woman doesn't have a place; she makes places. As Choreographies puts it.

A feminism that doesn't have that is anti-woman.

Feste said...

So we need a Thomas Nagel re-write?

“What is it Like to a Female Bat to be a Female Bat?”

Feste said...

Nagel neuterized female bats by not engendering batdome? - poor manhood failing Occam? - man-death by excessive science generalization, and insufficient field observation?

Feste said...

Back to female on female hatred.

I got it. It’s not knowing the difference between faux and real hatred between women mudwrestling in wet tee shirts, it’s not knowing that special moment when they’ll rip their clothes plumb off down to nekkid, it’s the ignorance of men not calculating the difference between true and false hatred between women that makes women mudwrestling fun.

Chicks may dig ignorance it too. I don’t know. Ask them.

Men know there’s too much memory cost associated with femme-predicting.

Parsing women involves too many simultaneous processes.

Women think – or pretend to think - these costs are payable and worthwhile.

Just watch.

Kate said...

Abortion. The cause used to be about a woman asserting control over her body integrity. Now it's celebration and promotion over a ghastly, invasive medical procedure that sticks a vacuum up the vagina and sucks away a small human because some woman couldn't remember to take a daily pill. Normalizing such a careless, self-centered woman is definitely misogyny.

tim in vermont said...

Look at how expansive that definition of misogyny is. I love the "includes," includes but not limited to, I am sure.

That definition is so broad that anybody can be guilty on their whim.

tim in vermont said...

"Fear and the resulting paranoia is the greatest enemy of mental health."

Now if you Trumpophobes would only look in the mirror. That's right,Howard, you can't. If you changed your mind, you would lose your friends. Why even allow the possibility of drifting from the one true faith of liberalism? Look what they did to Althouse. Who is really in a pitiful situation?

Earnest Prole said...

Tell Meade you'll write the post for $1,000.