The point is, what exactly do we mean by “misogyny”? Is it the same as sexism? A simple definition was “the hatred of women” which, in 2002 the Oxford Dictionary revised to “hatred or dislike of or prejudice against women.” This adds a little more clarity but is still insufficient. According to the sociologist, Allan G. Johnson misogyny is:
A central part of sexist prejudice and ideology and, as such, is an important basis for the oppression of females in male dominated societies. Misogyny is manifested in many ways, from jokes to pornography to violence to the self-contempt women may be taught to feel towards their own bodies.
The Collins Paperback English Dictionary again inadequately puts it as simply “the hatred of women”. The word “hatred” appears in many definitions and Allan Johnson correctly uses the word oppression. He also uses the word “sexist” which I would argue, though being equally wrong, sexism is not quite the same. First cousins yes, siblings no.
Johnson uses “pornography” in his definition. Does pornography add up to the “hatred” of women? In today’s real-world pornography is no longer isolated to men having sex in erotic positions with women, but, and for those of this orientation, men with men and women with women, do these add up to “hatred” of women? How many middle-aged couples today watch soft porn to spice up their flagging sex lives? Do these activities support “hatred” of women? Does the husband purchase a pornographic movie because he hates his wife and wishes to humiliate her? No, of course not and usually for such couples who feel the need the decision to watch such material is joint, between the two of them. The same rule applies to homosexual and lesbian couples, and certainly does not equal “hatred” of women. If misogyny, once it has clearly been defined is a “hate crime” then, surely, the same law must apply to Misandry, the hatred of men by women. Though very much less reported and, no doubt the number of cases be less it is, nevertheless, a hate crime but like Misogyny, Misandry must be clearly defined. A little more on this later.
Misogyny is often confused with sexism, which is again wrong, but less aggressive. For example, women are, particularly in the workplace, treat as the “weaker sex” in doing certain tasks. The men who take this attitude, mistakenly, are not doing it because they “hate” women but because in their own way in many cases (though not all) are trying to help. Another sexist act is the, these days lesser spotted wolf-whistle which again, belittling as they are/were, are not meant as acts of “hatred” against the female victim. The former US President, Donald Trump, was described as misogynous and with good reason. Many of his remarks, some caught on tape, depict women as objects for his own sexual pleasure when, and where it suited him. That is nothing short of misogyny and far more aggressive than the sexist wolf-whistle. Trump was caught on tape as referring to women “loving” being touched in certain parts of their anatomy. This is clearly misogynous and can not be taken as pure sexist banter.
Is paying women in the workplace less than men misogynous? Does it amount to “hatred” of female employees or is it old-fashioned outmoded sexism? My own view is because women are forced to a large extent to take it or be out of work amounts it to Misogyny, no question. Women should be paid the same rate as men for the same job, that should be obvious but, alas, it is not to many employers! I would be interested to hear the views of readers, particularly though not exclusively, women on this issue because these are my opinions which others may disagree with or my wish to add to.
“A woman’s place is in the home” is this just old-fashioned sexist stereotyping or is it misogynous? My view, and again this is an opinion, is that if a woman is forced by an aggressive partner to stay at home, “behind the kitchen sink” then it is unquestionably misogynous. If, on the other hand, it is a matter of choice as some women prefer to stay at home then that is a different issue. The unpaid labour carried out chiefly, but in modern times not exclusively, by women in the home like rearing children cannot be deemed misogynous or, in many cases, even sexist. This is because the maternal instincts in many women dictate to them they stay at home, often without a partner, to bring up their children. Some would have it no other way.
Is Misogyny applicable only to men behaving badly towards women? Sociologist Michael Flood argues; “Though most common in men, misogyny also exists in and is practiced by women against other women or even themselves”. For example, in a same sex relationship is it possible for the dominant partner to be misogynous towards the other? Is it misogynous for a man to, in the old-fashioned way, to make a pass at a woman in a public house, a library, a cinema or any other public place? I would argue offering to buy a woman a drink in a pub with the hope of striking up a conversation then, who knows a relationship, is not misogynous. It is just traditional boy meets girl and there is nothing either misogynous or sexist about it. if, on the other hand, the woman refuses the drink or makes it plain she does not want to know and the man continues this then becomes at very least harassment. In modern times there appears to be an effort to stop any discourse between man and women for fear, usually by the man, of being accused of misogyny or sexism. Therefore, the traditional way of striking up a relationship has been replaced by so-called “computer dating agencies” where all the chatting is done via an over-priced dating agency on a mobile phone, desktop or PC. Is this an attempt to amass huge profits out of the man meets woman scenario? I think most definitely the answer is yes. These agencies may work for some people, and to those the very best of luck, but personally I prefer the natural, traditional, meet in a public house, offer to buy the woman a drink, or ask if I can join her, and take it from there. if a rebuke comes, which nine out of ten times is the case (unlucky me) then back off as harassment is the next step. It is a question of drawing the line. This same rule of thumb applies to a woman approaching her intended male target in similar surroundings. If she scores then great, if not, back off! This is not rocket science and overpriced agencies, though they may have their uses for some, must never replace the traditional methods of discourse.
As touched on earlier we hear of cases in domestic relationships of husband beating by a violent female partner. These are less likely to be reported due to the “macho” image all men are supposed to have. They feel humiliated at the thought of reporting being a “battered husband”. This comes under Misandry or the hatred of men. It is exactly the same as misogyny but the other boot on the other foot, so to speak. If we are to classify Misogyny as a hate crime then so to must Misandry be also. Before either or both can be perhaps the following could be described as misogyny and misandry:
1) Unwelcome touching, primarily though not exclusively, by men on women (this can occur and does in same sex relationships). The same rule applies to unwelcome advances by women on men.
2) Physical or verbal abuse of a woman by a man (or same sex partner) which again should apply to Misandry also.
3) Insulting language about the woman’s anatomy, which almost certainly falls outside sexism and enters misogyny.
4) Forcing the woman (or man) to perform acts, sexual or otherwise, against their will.
5) Forcing the woman, against her will, to remain at home all day while the man goes out to work.
6) Forcing the woman to sit in doors at night looking after the kids while the man goes out, usually to the pub.
This list is not endless and additions would be welcome.
Middle-class liberals have relegated misogyny in importance, either by design or accident, by claiming in some cases every act of discourse by a man to a woman to be misogynous or, at very least, sexist. The example of man meets woman in a pub has been used above, but there are those who would have us all communicating via a computer. To do otherwise, some would have us believe, is misogynous by implication or sexist.
Johnson uses “pornography” in his definition. Does pornography add up to the “hatred” of women? In today’s real-world pornography is no longer isolated to men having sex in erotic positions with women, but, and for those of this orientation, men with men and women with women, do these add up to “hatred” of women? How many middle-aged couples today watch soft porn to spice up their flagging sex lives? Do these activities support “hatred” of women? Does the husband purchase a pornographic movie because he hates his wife and wishes to humiliate her? No, of course not and usually for such couples who feel the need the decision to watch such material is joint, between the two of them. The same rule applies to homosexual and lesbian couples, and certainly does not equal “hatred” of women. If misogyny, once it has clearly been defined is a “hate crime” then, surely, the same law must apply to Misandry, the hatred of men by women. Though very much less reported and, no doubt the number of cases be less it is, nevertheless, a hate crime but like Misogyny, Misandry must be clearly defined. A little more on this later.
Misogyny is often confused with sexism, which is again wrong, but less aggressive. For example, women are, particularly in the workplace, treat as the “weaker sex” in doing certain tasks. The men who take this attitude, mistakenly, are not doing it because they “hate” women but because in their own way in many cases (though not all) are trying to help. Another sexist act is the, these days lesser spotted wolf-whistle which again, belittling as they are/were, are not meant as acts of “hatred” against the female victim. The former US President, Donald Trump, was described as misogynous and with good reason. Many of his remarks, some caught on tape, depict women as objects for his own sexual pleasure when, and where it suited him. That is nothing short of misogyny and far more aggressive than the sexist wolf-whistle. Trump was caught on tape as referring to women “loving” being touched in certain parts of their anatomy. This is clearly misogynous and can not be taken as pure sexist banter.
Is paying women in the workplace less than men misogynous? Does it amount to “hatred” of female employees or is it old-fashioned outmoded sexism? My own view is because women are forced to a large extent to take it or be out of work amounts it to Misogyny, no question. Women should be paid the same rate as men for the same job, that should be obvious but, alas, it is not to many employers! I would be interested to hear the views of readers, particularly though not exclusively, women on this issue because these are my opinions which others may disagree with or my wish to add to.
“A woman’s place is in the home” is this just old-fashioned sexist stereotyping or is it misogynous? My view, and again this is an opinion, is that if a woman is forced by an aggressive partner to stay at home, “behind the kitchen sink” then it is unquestionably misogynous. If, on the other hand, it is a matter of choice as some women prefer to stay at home then that is a different issue. The unpaid labour carried out chiefly, but in modern times not exclusively, by women in the home like rearing children cannot be deemed misogynous or, in many cases, even sexist. This is because the maternal instincts in many women dictate to them they stay at home, often without a partner, to bring up their children. Some would have it no other way.
Is Misogyny applicable only to men behaving badly towards women? Sociologist Michael Flood argues; “Though most common in men, misogyny also exists in and is practiced by women against other women or even themselves”. For example, in a same sex relationship is it possible for the dominant partner to be misogynous towards the other? Is it misogynous for a man to, in the old-fashioned way, to make a pass at a woman in a public house, a library, a cinema or any other public place? I would argue offering to buy a woman a drink in a pub with the hope of striking up a conversation then, who knows a relationship, is not misogynous. It is just traditional boy meets girl and there is nothing either misogynous or sexist about it. if, on the other hand, the woman refuses the drink or makes it plain she does not want to know and the man continues this then becomes at very least harassment. In modern times there appears to be an effort to stop any discourse between man and women for fear, usually by the man, of being accused of misogyny or sexism. Therefore, the traditional way of striking up a relationship has been replaced by so-called “computer dating agencies” where all the chatting is done via an over-priced dating agency on a mobile phone, desktop or PC. Is this an attempt to amass huge profits out of the man meets woman scenario? I think most definitely the answer is yes. These agencies may work for some people, and to those the very best of luck, but personally I prefer the natural, traditional, meet in a public house, offer to buy the woman a drink, or ask if I can join her, and take it from there. if a rebuke comes, which nine out of ten times is the case (unlucky me) then back off as harassment is the next step. It is a question of drawing the line. This same rule of thumb applies to a woman approaching her intended male target in similar surroundings. If she scores then great, if not, back off! This is not rocket science and overpriced agencies, though they may have their uses for some, must never replace the traditional methods of discourse.
As touched on earlier we hear of cases in domestic relationships of husband beating by a violent female partner. These are less likely to be reported due to the “macho” image all men are supposed to have. They feel humiliated at the thought of reporting being a “battered husband”. This comes under Misandry or the hatred of men. It is exactly the same as misogyny but the other boot on the other foot, so to speak. If we are to classify Misogyny as a hate crime then so to must Misandry be also. Before either or both can be perhaps the following could be described as misogyny and misandry:
1) Unwelcome touching, primarily though not exclusively, by men on women (this can occur and does in same sex relationships). The same rule applies to unwelcome advances by women on men.
2) Physical or verbal abuse of a woman by a man (or same sex partner) which again should apply to Misandry also.
3) Insulting language about the woman’s anatomy, which almost certainly falls outside sexism and enters misogyny.
4) Forcing the woman (or man) to perform acts, sexual or otherwise, against their will.
5) Forcing the woman, against her will, to remain at home all day while the man goes out to work.
6) Forcing the woman to sit in doors at night looking after the kids while the man goes out, usually to the pub.
This list is not endless and additions would be welcome.
Middle-class liberals have relegated misogyny in importance, either by design or accident, by claiming in some cases every act of discourse by a man to a woman to be misogynous or, at very least, sexist. The example of man meets woman in a pub has been used above, but there are those who would have us all communicating via a computer. To do otherwise, some would have us believe, is misogynous by implication or sexist.
This is taking a very serious issue and belittling it. These same people do the same with racism. They take the slightest issue, in the case of racist language in Britain they banned the use of the word “Blackboard” in schools deciding it was/is racist. In the meantime, real racism which needed/needs tackling was/is going on in the streets every day. Something similar is happening with the word misogyny. While real “hatred” against women goes unreported, often resulting in women being killed, petty little comments are being taken out of proportion. For example, it is not misogynous to say to a woman, “thank you love”, it is just a term and could be deemed the opposite of misogyny. In parts of Yorkshire, England, it is common for people to refer to each other as “my old luv” (a nonstandard spelling of love) male to male, male to female, female to female and female to male it is just part of the local discourse.
Yes, Misogyny should be made a hate crime along with Misandry but let us have a clear definition of what constitutes both. Otherwise, we will have men and women before the bench simply for speaking to each other!
Yes, Misogyny should be made a hate crime along with Misandry but let us have a clear definition of what constitutes both. Otherwise, we will have men and women before the bench simply for speaking to each other!
 |
Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist |
Misogyny is demeaning behaviour towards women backed by violence, be it physical, sexual or controlling behaviour. Likewise, misandry.
ReplyDeleteWell done Caoimhin for your careful elucidation of what is often a linguistic minefield.