What are the roots of misogyny?

[Mr. Piccolo]

I can never wrap my head around what makes people misogynistic. I mean, your mother is a woman, if you have sisters they are women, daughters, etc. I am often shocked by some of the things people say about women as a group. I always think: "what if somebody said that about your sister?"

The only theory I can come up with is that some men have had bad relationships and that made them prejudiced against women as a sex.

Any thoughts?

[HampshireGirl]

I think it's frustration.
The most misogynistic comments I've ever heard are usually done by bitter men, who maybe were cheated on one time, or maybe got dumped, or just never had a real relationship.

They think women are these vile, evil creatures, who are wicked just because they refuse to worship them, serve them, and fuck them whenever they wish it.

Succesful and admirable men will never go on these tripes.

I would feel sorry for those men, if they didn't hate my entire gender. Since they do, I can only say "screw you" :)

[Mr. Piccolo]

I think it's frustration.
The most misogynistic comments I've ever heard are usually done by bitter men, who maybe were cheated on one time, or maybe got dumped, or just never had a real relationship.

They think women are these vile, evil creatures, who are wicked just because they refuse to worship them, serve them, and fuck them whenever they wish it.

Succesful and admirable men will never go on these tripes.

I would feel sorry for those men, if they didn't hate my entire gender. Since they do, I can only say "screw you" :)

Yes, I was basically thinking along those lines as well. I wonder, though, if men sometimes displace their frustrations with material conditions onto women.

Just as an anecdote (not worth much, I know) I have a friend who feels he is being treated badly at work. His boss is female. Instead of seeing the conflict through the lens of class he feels that he is being treated badly by a woman boss who has it in for men. It has nothing to do with efforts to extract more work for less money out of workers, instead its a case of a powerful woman attacking men out of spite.

I asked him if he honestly thought that these unfair measures would not be enacted if his boss was a man and he said yes. Because somehow men "get it" and are "about business not politics" or something like that.

[Kingfish]

Depends on what type of misogyny you are talking about, if its the more subtle kind ie the idea that women should prioritize being homemakers or dress a certain way then that is linked to cultural factors which in turn are defined by economic ones (hence the reason why indigenous women in Australia have more in common with the nomadic US aborigines rather than say Javanese women despite the vast distance between the them).

In regards to the type of misogyny you described and that you will see on the internet like most irrational dislikes or fears tend has in basis on personal experience and the views of their peer group. For isntance when you look at the infamous work of Valerie Solanas (the misandric SCUM Manifesto) at first instance it seems remarkable that someone (in a way similar to that friend of Mr Piccolo) could hold such views, however when you look at their circumstances then you can understand it. Though of course this in no way validates such views.

[Бай Ганьо]

I think it's a mix of sexual frustration, need for scapegoats (e.g. I often hear from misogynists that women's desires are insatiable, and that they are the cause of consumerist society) and (superiority) beliefs.
Part of the oldest roots of misogyny, however, might be beliefs about menstruation, since some theories propose that menstrual blood of women is the cause of sexual division of labor in the most ancient societies. Men were hunters and bleeding was automatically interpreted as carrying an injury. A wounded person was considered (temporarily, cyclically or permanently) handicapped. For example, they discovered that among Aboriginal Australians, young circumcised men with unscarified wounds weren’t allowed to hunt until full recovery. Because of their periods, women were banished from hunting and relegated to fruit picking. So, the idea was that (seemingly) weaker people are an evil burden (hence misogyny in case of women) who should be removed from certain activities or even eliminated (e.g. the ableist culture of ancient Greeks who killed disabled new-born children).

[Redistribute the Rep]

Well, gender roles with regards to hunting were quite diverse, as were attitudes toward menstruation, with some communities regarding it positively as a sign of coming of age, fertility, and good health.

Womens monogamy is important for the maintenance of property relations. Fathers needed to know who their heirs were to have a stable line of inheritance to legitimatize their ownership of property. The shift from hunter gather societies to settled agricultural class society can be seen as a major event in the history of gender roles in this sense. In capitalism, women's sexual role is to reproduce a steady supply of workers, and do most of the unpaid labor

[BIXX]

I'm kinda with perlman on this one. Because it was the male hunters who in the earliest days of civilization went to attack other peoples crops and shit. That established men as the leading figure of civilization. Prior to that it could have been more balanced (women were seen as the life-givers, closer to mother earth), but I don't think that there was ever a pre-gender world, there were gender roles where men did one thing and women did another (though this was also subject to change).

[Rafiq]

Misogyny is inherently a component of every reactionary, and anti-social pathology, from fascism to modern American libertarianism. While there could be more sophisticated explanations on a psychoanalytical level, to put it simply misogyny stems from a perpetuated necessity to regulate female sexuality in approximation to the existing order and to deny them a sexual identity. Misogynists have a boundless inferiority complex - they never see themselves as big male chauvinists trying to enslave women, on the contrary, they see women as in a position of power.

[Rafiq]

Part of the oldest roots of misogyny, however, might be beliefs about menstruation, since some theories propose that menstrual blood of women is the cause of sexual division of labor in the most ancient societies. Men were hunters and bleeding was automatically interpreted as carrying an injury. A wounded person was considered (temporarily, cyclically or permanently) handicapped. For example, they discovered that among Aboriginal Australians, young circumcised men with unscarified wounds weren’t allowed to hunt until full recovery. Because of their periods, women were banished from hunting and relegated to fruit picking. So, the idea was that (seemingly) weaker people are an evil burden

This is absolutely and utterly nonsensical. Even if this were true, which it clearly is not (How could ANY human society not have understood menstruation as cyclic and regular? Other primates also have a menstrual cycle, so before anything even began hunting, it was present. How could it have even been interpreted as an injury? It is simply a profoundly idiotic explanation), we do not live in a hunter-gatherer society. So how could this pathology still be carried on? This isn't how history works.

The fact of the matter is that attitudes toward women are uniquely perpetual of a given historic epoch, that we might have in common misogyny with the ancient greeks (and this is flimsy - their misogyny was entirely different, we simply project ours to theirs) sais nothing about an inherent trans-historical misogynist pathology (owed to what? Any idiot can understand that human "traditions" are not carried trans-historically, they are completely wiped away as though they never existed and what remains serves a definitive function in a given epoch. We have nothing in common with hunter-gatherer societies.) but that conditions which lead to misogyny were both present, even if not in common.

[Rafiq]

It's as stupid as saying racism exists because of some tradition which has its origins in hunter-gatherer societies wherein we are supposed to be "suspicious' of outsiders. Actually, I might bet everything that there are scum out there who actually believe this. I do not know what is more infuriating, the fact that evolutionary psychology parasitically exploits ignorance by presenting itself in sickening spectacle-like mediums of information, or that the only people in our society whom are in principle supposed to be opposed to it often flirt with it. Evolutionary psychology is, in its entirety, with no exceptions complete fucking garbage.

[BIXX]

Rafiq, there is, if I remember correctly, a lot of evidence that this or that society didn't at one point realize that periods were cyclical.

On another note, when I say make your posts shorter I dont mean divide it into three separate posts, I mean shorten the whole content.

However I can't agree more with (and I can't believe I'm saying I agree with you, I hadn't eaten today so the ouke is just stomach acid, rendering all the care I take of my teeth entirely moot) you on this: "misogyny stems from a perpetuated necessity to regulate female sexuality in approximation to the existing order and to deny them a sexual identity."

I hate to say it but so far that statement is the single most important part of this thread.

[Rafiq]

Rafiq, there is, if I remember correctly, a lot of evidence that this or that society didn't at one point realize that periods were cyclical.

I could be wrong, but from what I had heard menstrual cycles were far less frequent in hunter-gatherer societies. What evidence exists that hunter-gatherers didn't know what menstruation was? So far, what we are presented with is that hunter-gatherers today disallow people with injuries to hunt until they are fully recovered (what? how is this anything beyond common sense?). I simply do not know how this could lead one to the conclusion that blood (none the less menstruation!) was automatically interpreted as a serious injury, considering hunter gatherers HAD to have regularly received small injuries which led to bleeding.

Conversely, what is rationally explicable is a tendency for people to legitimize existing conditions of life with some kind of pre-conceived eternal fact of life.


On another note, when I say make your posts shorter I dont mean divide it into three separate posts, I mean shorten the whole content.


Don't flatter yourself into thinking I even consider your advice regarding my posting style. They will be as long as they need to - it is something of a habit of mine to make multiple posts, any idiot can see they are a stream of consciousness.

[BIXX]

I didn't mean that the person you responded to was right, just wanted to state what I'd heard. Unfortunately I am unable to do an effective search right now but if I remember later I will.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Succesful and admirable men will never go on these tripes.
Uh...they're often some of the most misogynist men.

[The Disillusionist]

Ok, the patriarchy is a thing, and it's a serious issue, and it should be smashed. Obviously men can be real assholes, hopefully no one is questioning that. Sexism shouldn't exist anymore, and it is primarily men who are responsible for doing away with it, because they primarily perpetrate it.

That being said, I'm gonna play devil's advocate here, to try to introduce a debate-sparking perspective, and suggest that some of the cultural roots of misogyny are upheld by women as well as men. I've noticed that many of the people who judge women most harshly for their bodies, their actions, and their life choices, are other women. Just like men will throw other men (and women) into the grinder to make themselves more successful, women will throw other women (and men) into the grinder to make themselves more successful as well. It's the way society works. For example, men convince each other that 12 inch penises and body-builder bodies are the only way to attract women, even though most women don't actually even agree with that. Men are primarily responsible for upholding that standard and for judging other men who don't achieve it. Women aren't in the locker rooms sizing other men up, the men are. In the same vein, women have managed to convince each other through fashion magazines and crap like that, that the majority of guys don't even read, that tiny waists and oversized plastic breasts are the ideal, and then they judge each other for not achieving that standard, even though most guys don't even care. I don't know many guys who could really say what size bra a pair of breasts could fit into, they would really have no idea. I know I wouldn't. Yet I bet most women would have no problem doing that.

I hate to use gender as an all-encompassing term here, and I'm obviously over-generalizing, and I apologize for that, but I'm just trying to use sweeping, not-entirely-accurate statements to make the point that oppression can come from within an oppressed group as well as from outside of it. By just focusing on misogyny amongst men, we are preventing ourselves from seeing the entire picture.

I was actually just thinking about this topic today, because I was thinking about the dynamics of beauty and the way it's advertised, which are kinda funny. Take that Dove natural beauty ad, for example, the one with the more curvy women... That ad is the best thing ever. I look at that ad and I see a group of women far more beautiful than the typical supermodel. I could stare at it for an hour. I love curves, as do many men. And yet I hear women talking about ads like that, and they talk about them as if they are some kind of aggressive attack on male standards of beauty that we men are just going to have to grudgingly tolerate. It sounds like they are the ones who are grudgingly tolerating the ad, not guys... These same women are the people who can pick another woman's outfit apart piece by piece and evaluate it for subtle flaws that I would have never seen in a million years. It's the way capitalist society works, identity politics only go so far before competition between individuals takes over and oppression infiltrates the system.

P.S. Usually I wouldn't use this much tact, and I would just jump in with a direct statement because that would make for the best argument, but as sexism is (justifiably) a bannable offense, I'm trying to make sure that the intent behind my message is very clear here.

[The Disillusionist]

It's as stupid as saying racism exists because of some tradition which has its origins in hunter-gatherer societies wherein we are supposed to be "suspicious' of outsiders. Actually, I might bet everything that there are scum out there who actually believe this. I do not know what is more infuriating, the fact that evolutionary psychology parasitically exploits ignorance by presenting itself in sickening spectacle-like mediums of information, or that the only people in our society whom are in principle supposed to be opposed to it often flirt with it. Evolutionary psychology is, in its entirety, with no exceptions complete fucking garbage.

Why do so many people on this site hate evolutionary psychology so much? It's not the same thing as Social Darwinism... Evolutionarily, humans have actually benefited far more from interacting with each other than from avoiding each other. That's why we have evolved such complex social mechanisms in the first place. The fact that I am communicating with you right now is because our evolutionary ancestors benefited from communicating with each other. Racism is primarily a cultural/historical phenomenon, and as far as I know from my ethnographic research, tends to be less frequent among hunter-gatherer populations than among industrialized/nationalized populations.

[The Disillusionist]

I could be wrong, but from what I had heard menstrual cycles were far less frequent in hunter-gatherer societies. What evidence exists that hunter-gatherers didn't know what menstruation was? So far, what we are presented with is that hunter-gatherers today disallow people with injuries to hunt until they are fully recovered (what? how is this anything beyond common sense?). I simply do not know how this could lead one to the conclusion that blood (none the less menstruation!) was automatically interpreted as a serious injury, considering hunter gatherers HAD to have regularly received small injuries which led to bleeding.


Menstrual cycles are directly linked with body fat levels, and thus with nutrition. As a result, onset of menstruation among hunter-gatherers is often delayed until the late teens (18ish) when hunter-gatherer women have accumulated high enough fat levels. However, unless a hunter-gatherer woman later undergoes a time of nutritional stress, which would cause menstruation to stop, her cycle wouldn't be much different in frequency than industrialized women.

As for the idea that menstruating women would be considered to have injuries... I highly doubt that. Hunter-gatherers aren't stupid, they are very tuned into to the human body and the environment, and their patterns of thought tend to be very cyclical anyway, because the environment tends to be cyclical. Some tribes do have certain taboos, in which women are not allowed to eat certain things, like shellfish, while menstruating, and some tribes require women to spend time in a menstrual hut away from others while menstruating. But as has been mentioned, attitudes toward women vary wildly among hunter-gatherer tribes, there is no "universal" attitude toward women among hunter-gatherers.

[consuming negativity]

Ok, the patriarchy is a thing, and it's a serious issue, and it should be smashed. Obviously men can be real assholes, hopefully no one is questioning that. Sexism shouldn't exist anymore, and it is primarily men who are responsible for doing away with it, because they primarily perpetrate it.

That being said, I'm gonna play devil's advocate here, to try to introduce a debate-sparking perspective, and suggest that some of the cultural roots of misogyny are upheld by women as well as men. I've noticed that many of the people who judge women most harshly for their bodies, their actions, and their life choices, are other women. Just like men will throw other men (and women) into the grinder to make themselves more successful, women will throw other women (and men) into the grinder to make themselves more successful as well. It's the way society works. For example, men convince each other that 12 inch penises and body-builder bodies are the only way to attract women, even though most women don't actually even agree with that. Men are primarily responsible for upholding that standard and for judging other men who don't achieve it. Women aren't in the locker rooms sizing other men up, the men are. In the same vein, women have managed to convince each other through fashion magazines and crap like that, that the majority of guys don't even read, that tiny waists and oversized plastic breasts are the ideal, and then they judge each other for not achieving that standard, even though most guys don't even care. I don't know many guys who could really say what size bra a pair of breasts could fit into, they would really have no idea. I know I wouldn't. Yet I bet most women would have no problem doing that.

I hate to use gender as an all-encompassing term here, and I'm obviously over-generalizing, and I apologize for that, but I'm just trying to use sweeping, not-entirely-accurate statements to make the point that oppression can come from within an oppressed group as well as from outside of it. By just focusing on misogyny amongst men, we are preventing ourselves from seeing the entire picture.

I was actually just thinking about this topic today, because I was thinking about the dynamics of beauty and the way it's advertised, which are kinda funny. Take that Dove natural beauty ad, for example, the one with the more curvy women... That ad is the best thing ever. I look at that ad and I see a group of women far more beautiful than the typical supermodel. I could stare at it for an hour. I love curves, as do many men. And yet I hear women talking about ads like that, and they talk about them as if they are some kind of aggressive attack on male standards of beauty that we men are just going to have to grudgingly tolerate. It sounds like they are the ones who are grudgingly tolerating the ad, not guys... These same women are the people who can pick another woman's outfit apart piece by piece and evaluate it for subtle flaws that I would have never seen in a million years. It's the way capitalist society works, identity politics only go so far before competition between individuals takes over and oppression infiltrates the system.

P.S. Usually I wouldn't use this much tact, and I would just jump in with a direct statement because that would make for the best argument, but as sexism is (justifiably) a bannable offense, I'm trying to make sure that the intent behind my message is very clear here.

your conclusion does not follow from your premise because you misunderstand the meaning of your own observations

women who do these things are internalizing and reflecting the beliefs of their society in the same way that men are, yes, but how would that make them part of "the root" of misogyny in our culture? it makes no sense

but yes, women reinforce sexism and are sexists; they are a part of our society. this is not a devil's advocate position in relation to feminism or even feminism as it is known on revleft.

just be careful where you go with that whole "women are the ones who perpetuate sexism" line...

[The Disillusionist]

your conclusion does not follow from your premise because you misunderstand the meaning of your own observations

women who do these things are internalizing and reflecting the beliefs of their society in the same way that men are, yes, but how would that make them part of "the root" of misogyny in our culture? it makes no sense

but yes, women reinforce sexism and are sexists; they are a part of our society. this is not a devil's advocate position in relation to feminism or even feminism as it is known on revleft.

just be careful where you go with that whole "women are the ones who perpetuate sexism" line...

I'm not talking about misogyny as a whole, I'm just talking about certain aspects of misogyny that are created and perpetuated between women themselves. One woman hates another woman because she looks a certain way, dresses a certain way, acts a certain way, etc.. I'm not just saying that women internalize these social beliefs, I'm saying that they have helped to create the beliefs themselves by applying beauty standards to each other, which makes them a partial root for that specific form of misogyny.

And as I was careful to say, obviously the vast majority of the responsibility for sexism falls on men. I just figured that that vast majority of stuff had already been discussed pretty thoroughly.

[Rafiq]

The fact that I am communicating with you right now is because our evolutionary ancestors benefited from communicating with each other.

This isn't evolutionary psychology and the concern is never about how communication as such became possible, and so on. You may be able to communicate with me, but I promise you our evolutionary ancestors had nothing with the specifialities of your language, rooted in complex social relationships which were impossible during that time. Evolutionary psychology isn't opposed because it is associated with social darwinism, it is opposed because it attempts to pass off that which is unique to our epoch as having some kind of grounding in eternal qualities of mankind. It is rather simple: as a discipline, it emerged for a reason under the backdrop of other, more sophisticated and superior forms of psychology. It is degenerate in nature.

[BIXX]

I'm not sure if you're arguing against this rafiq, but just to clarify, that doesn't mean shit from previous modes of production don't pass over. It just means that there will be specifics in how this or that will play out. I do believe that perlman was correct in the way he analyzed patriarchy, for example, but shit has changed since the days of patriarchy's birth.

[Rudolf]

That ad is the best thing ever. I look at that ad and I see a group of women far more beautiful than the typical supermodel. I could stare at it for an hour. I love curves, as do many men. And yet I hear women talking about ads like that, and they talk about them as if they are some kind of aggressive attack on male standards of beauty that we men are just going to have to grudgingly tolerate. It sounds like they are the ones who are grudgingly tolerating the ad, not guys... These same women are the people who can pick another woman's outfit apart piece by piece and evaluate it for subtle flaws that I would have never seen in a million years. It's the way capitalist society works, identity politics only go so far before competition between individuals takes over and oppression infiltrates the system.



Interesting as i look at adverts like that aswell as current ones blighting my city centre going on about shit like 'jiggly is sexy' etc as a continuation of the same shit. Objectifying women with an unrealistic body image or a realistic one is still objectifying women.

I also find the fact you pointing out "i love curves" in a thread about patriarchal society saddening and irritating.

[The Disillusionist]

Interesting as i look at adverts like that aswell as current ones blighting my city centre going on about shit like 'jiggly is sexy' etc as a continuation of the same shit. Objectifying women with an unrealistic body image or a realistic one is still objectifying women.

I also find the fact you pointing out "i love curves" in a thread about patriarchal society saddening and irritating.

Sure, the new stuff could become a continuation of the same stuff, if it became the new standard by which women are judged. I'm not judging anyone by any standard, and I'm not the one creating the standards. That was not the point of my post, I'm not saying that skinny women are inferior. The point of my post is that my idea of attractiveness, like that of many men, does not align with the socially mainstream "idea of beauty," which seems in many cases to be upheld more by women than by men.

Also, I'm not gonna apologize for my sexuality, and don't have any idea why that statement would be in any way saddening or irritating... I am attracted to the female body. That doesn't mean in any way that I don't also appreciate women for their minds and personalities, and it doesn't in any way mean that I am not capable of treating women as equal. I consider myself a feminist, and believe wholeheartedly that men and women should be equal. Does being attracted to curvy bodies negate that opinion somehow?

[The Disillusionist]

This isn't evolutionary psychology and the concern is never about how communication as such became possible, and so on. You may be able to communicate with me, but I promise you our evolutionary ancestors had nothing with the specifialities of your language, rooted in complex social relationships which were impossible during that time. Evolutionary psychology isn't opposed because it is associated with social darwinism, it is opposed because it attempts to pass off that which is unique to our epoch as having some kind of grounding in eternal qualities of mankind. It is rather simple: as a discipline, it emerged for a reason under the backdrop of other, more sophisticated and superior forms of psychology. It is degenerate in nature.

This is a valid criticism, and I actually agree, I am not a fan of evolutionary psychology myself, in the way that it is practiced today. However, I don't think that all attempts at understand the evolutionary origins of our behavior should be thrown out as a result, because evolutionary theory has the potential to teach us a great deal about ourselves and human society. In fact, I would argue that evolutionary theory is every bit as important as historical materialism or any other social theory in understanding those things.

[Rudolf]

Sure, the new stuff could become a continuation of the same stuff, if it became the new standard by which women are judged. I'm not judging anyone by any standard, and I'm not the one creating the standards. That was not the point of my post, I'm not saying that skinny women are inferior. The point of my post is that my idea of attractiveness, like that of many men, does not align with the socially mainstream "idea of beauty," which seems in many cases to be upheld more by women than by men.


When i say it's a continuation of the same i mean that it's a continuation of the appearance of women and their perceived attractiveness being an issue of public discourse. This itself is fucked up. I don't think you can combat negative body image through the continuation of women's appearance being a matter of public discourse.




Also, I'm not gonna apologize for my sexuality, and don't have any idea why that statement would be in any way saddening or irritating... I am attracted to the female body. That doesn't mean in any way that I don't also appreciate women for their minds and personalities, and it doesn't in any way mean that I am not capable of treating women as equal. I consider myself a feminist, and believe wholeheartedly that men and women should be equal. Does being attracted to curvy bodies negate that opinion somehow?

No, what does negate it imo is pointing out your sexual preferences for women in a thread to do with patriarchy. Your sexuality isn't a problem the fact you think it's relevant is.

[Hexen]

While I was thinking about creating a new thread until I found this, well while I was reading this article (http://www.ryot.org/photos-these-women-were-doused-in-acid-for-turning-down-marriage-proposals/559641) I came across these comments made by this person named "DougVann" who claims....well read it and judge by yourself:


DougVann (http://www.livefyre.com/profile/48089136/) Jun 26, 2014A cultural shift needs to take place in how we perceive and "deal with" men. A man can develop a terrible obsession with a female that will cause him to become angry when he does not get what he wants. I was reading an article in Psychology Today that theorizes that men become angry with cheating women because of biological drives that stem from our days as primates. It is common for testosterone to kick in, and in primates, for the male to kill his competition. This is survival of the fittest, because, in nature, it is benificial for one's own DNA to propogate, not another's. The primal drive then, is to literally kill your competion for the survival of your own genes. It is derived from nature, and this drive is incredibly strong -- just as strong as the sexual drive itself.




What we are taught as men is that our actions are unacceptable and must be punished, which is true from the viewpoint of a society, but not from the viewpoint of the forces of nature. We do not punish women for following their natures of being nurturing and sexual creatures. Why do we only punish men for following their biologically derived drives?


You cannot remove parts of the brain that come from our ancestors. Evolution builds upon our already existing brain parts. What is the solution? To continue to socially bully males until we are all in jail?

FlagShare
LikeReplyhttps://lfavatar-a.akamaihd.net/a/1/921c5d038dce19ba1755fcdbf50fd423/50.jpg?v=1403812845 (http://www.livefyre.com/profile/51557643/)
JennieGoodlett (http://www.livefyre.com/profile/51557643/) Jun 26, 2014I'm not sure how your argument has anything to do with this. These women were not competitors to men propogating their genes. Besides following your logic, men are so driven by instinct they have no choice but to attack their competition. This is a sad argument, which takes away self control from males. Finally, attaining acid to disfigure someone, even if it is merely in a different local in the house, and not needed to be purchased, is premeditated. This eliminates the argument that a man's instinct is what drives him to do this. It's a socially constructed response. That being said I think that it should also be pointed out that there are plenty of men in these cultures that value and respect women.

FlagShare
2https://lfavatar-a.akamaihd.net/a/1/15787507870e5e04c909865e4b8963fb/50.jpg?v=1420249501 (http://www.livefyre.com/profile/70438389/)http://gravatar.com/avatar/6998c5346116dc2636d1589dcfb2a583/?s=50&d=http://avatars.fyre.co/a/anon/50.jpg (http://www.livefyre.com/profile/52913403/)LikeReply
http://avatars.fyre.co/a/1/51af45eac06f8efebf85b3265ec85dda/50.jpg?v=1402086224 (http://www.livefyre.com/profile/48089136/)
DougVann (http://www.livefyre.com/profile/48089136/) Jun 27, [email protected] (http://www.livefyre.com/profile/51557643/) Hi. Thanks for reading and your thoughtful response. I have struggled to understand anger towards women in extreme examples such as this and in cases in my own life where a woman has cheated on me. I asked myself a profound question: where does the anger come from? The anger and the inability to deal with it is the root of the problem here. Yes, better socialization of men is clearly in order. That's when I sought the help of Psychology Today. Their article addresses the issue of anger and where it stems from. Anger is a primal drive -- premeditated or not -- that causes men to do things that are not beneficial to themselves or others. According to the article it appears to stem from a primal drive to eliminate your competition.


Your argument is that women are not biological competitors is irrelevant for two reasons. 1) I'm not talking about logic. I'm talking about anger and where it stems from. What you do with the anger is perhaps in the realm of logic. But the anger is the root of the problem 2) women are biological competitors because if you carry someone else's child rather than mine, in the primal world, you are not carrying my dna and are therefore competition.


And I disagree that this is a sad argument. It is a realistic argument. It is an enlightened argument. Until you understand the male mind, and appreciate it throughout history and through repsect for our ancestors, then you will never be able to arrive at truth and begin to understand and unravel these "tragic" events. Shunning our ancestors does not make them any less real. We come from the primal world, from an ugly reality. Let's not shun that. Let's embrace it and understand it and form a circle of love around these men. Without this male drive that you shun, your ancestors would not have survived in this brutal world.





Is there any response to this DougVann person?

[#FF0000]

The point of my post is that my idea of attractiveness, like that of many men, does not align with the socially mainstream "idea of beauty," which seems in many cases to be upheld more by women than by men.

My issue with this is that it's not really "women" as a group who have control over this. Women aren't the ones in control of the companies that set these standards. Women as a group certainly aren't deciding what the standard of beauty is.


Also, I'm not gonna apologize for my sexuality, and don't have any idea why that statement would be in any way saddening or irritating... I am attracted to the female body. That doesn't mean in any way that I don't also appreciate women for their minds and personalities, and it doesn't in any way mean that I am not capable of treating women as equal. I consider myself a feminist, and believe wholeheartedly that men and women should be equal. Does being attracted to curvy bodies negate that opinion somehow?

This weird imagined persecution regarding one's sexuality and preferences, the pop-science understanding of evo-psych, and the "devil's advocate" opening are traits of the stereotypical Bad Poster and it's so bizarre to see it again and again and again in threads like this.

[#FF0000]

Also, I think it'd be interesting if this thread shifted from talking about people's attitudes regarding women, to talking about the roots of misogyny as a social structure.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

While I was thinking about creating a new thread until I found this, well while I was reading this article (http://www.ryot.org/photos-these-women-were-doused-in-acid-for-turning-down-marriage-proposals/559641) I came across these comments made by this person named "DougVann" who claims....well read it and judge by yourself:



Is there any response to this DougVann person?

Yeah his argument boils down to an appeal to nature and it is as unconvincing in the hands of a misogynist as it is in the hands of a capitalist.


We do not punish women for following their natures of being nurturing and sexual creatures

This is as problematic to me as saying that women are naturally submissive, weak, etc. If it was 'natural' for men to kill unfaithful partners then why does it happen so infrequently? Or to take it in a different direction, how would this idea account for same sex couples that experience violence driven by jealousy? This argument lets men off the hook socially by blaming 'nature' and its bullshit.

[Rudolf]

to talking about the roots of misogyny as a social structure.


On this note is there any other serious theory about its origin other than its origin been in the enslavement of women for the purpose of men controlling their reproductive systems in societies which have resources that lend themselves to easily be inherited such as cattle?

[Hexen]

This is as problematic to me as saying that women are naturally submissive, weak, etc. If it was 'natural' for men to kill unfaithful partners then why does it happen so infrequently? Or to take it in a different direction, how would this idea account for same sex couples that experience violence driven by jealousy? This argument lets men off the hook socially by blaming 'nature' and its bullshit

Thank you, well the last thing that bothers me is his argument that "it stems from primates" and others which is there any way to debunk his crap in detail?

[BIXX]

Thank you, well the last thing that bothers me is his argument that "it stems from primates" and others which is there any way to debunk his crap in detail?
Some researcher with some shit about monkeys people here will know what I'm referring to

[Rudolf]

Some researcher with some shit about monkeys people here will know what I'm referring to


Are you referring to that baboon troop that after nearly being wiped out there was a shift in relations and was more peaceful afterwards? If so the researcher was Dr. Robert Sapolsky.

[nadya]

Patriarchy does not literally mean discriminating women in workplaces or the military unlike what the Old Soviet Union did. Women were allowed in combat in SU. Actually among the best snipers was a woman named Ludmyla. Misogynists are men who have bloated egos. They usually are the first men to flee when combat occurs. They are wife beaters, wife abusers, gamblers and are those who fail their children. Of all people, why pick a fight with women or assault a woman.

[Hexen]

Are you referring to that baboon troop that after nearly being wiped out there was a shift in relations and was more peaceful afterwards? If so the researcher was Dr. Robert Sapolsky.

Here's a interesting article I found on the matter:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/09/online_misogyny_of_the_fappening_stealing_celebrit y_photos_is_not_just_human.html

[BIXX]

Are you referring to that baboon troop that after nearly being wiped out there was a shift in relations and was more peaceful afterwards? If so the researcher was Dr. Robert Sapolsky.
Yep that's the one.

[DOOM]

It's as stupid as saying racism exists because of some tradition which has its origins in hunter-gatherer societies wherein we are supposed to be "suspicious' of outsiders. Actually, I might bet everything that there are scum out there who actually believe this. I do not know what is more infuriating, the fact that evolutionary psychology parasitically exploits ignorance by presenting itself in sickening spectacle-like mediums of information, or that the only people in our society whom are in principle supposed to be opposed to it often flirt with it. Evolutionary psychology is, in its entirety, with no exceptions complete fucking garbage.

This. Modern patriarchy and thus modern misogyny are exclusive to capitalism. Theories stating that the patriachy is a vestige of pre-capitalist societies are lazy and imprecise imho.