Archive for the ‘misogyny’ Category

Defining our terms

July 14, 2009

First, I don’t often link to Dusk In Autumn, partly because occasionally he says really whacked out things, but he sometimes has interesting Roissy-ish things to say. Like today:

The reasons that females police promiscuity are self-interested, not patriarchal

Also, I happened to think about this post I made a few months ago. The post began, “I just came across some idiot male feminist saying on a blog that Superman rescuing Lois Lane all the time is “misogynist”. Got that, boys? If you save a woman from murder or abduction or whatever, it’s because you hate her!”

The poor man was clearly confused, but not only about the proper relationship between the sexes. He also had his feminist keywords confused.

What the mangina doubtless meant was that it was “male chauvinist” for Superman to rescue Lois Lane. Let’s define our terms.

An antifeminist is simply someone who opposes the excesses of feminism. Default female custody, for instance, or the wild increase in false rape accusations. (As an aside: recently I googled “false rape accusation”, and to my amazement, the first ten results Google gave me weren’t feminists expressing fury that anyone admits that such exist, but articles denouncing such accusations [which in addition to destroying men’s lives, also cast doubt on genuine accusations] and sites telling falsely accused men how they can defend themselves and rebuild their lives. That was one of the most pleasant surprises I’ve had in a while.)

I think some of my readers aren’t misogynists like me, just antifeminists who think the women’s movement has gone too far and want to hear something different for a change.

A male chauvinist is a person who recognizes the fact that men are basically superior to women. It’s male chauvinist for Superman to rescue Lois Lane because this implies, correctly, that she can’t do it herself and needs a man to do it for her.

A misogynist is someone who hates women. Not every single woman, but women in general.

A misandrist is someone who hates men. In one of her novels, Marilyn French fretted that there wasn’t even a word for this. There is.

A misanthropist or misanthrope is someone who hates humans. Of either sex.

And as long as I’m defining terms: a feminist is a person who subscribes to the myth that women are intellectually and morally equal to men, and that they can be, not merely allowed, but encouraged to engage in traditionally male pursuits and freed from traditional obligations (such as chastity and child care) without harm to society.

Female Misogynists

June 26, 2009

Do you know of any Female Misogynists; women that hate women?
Any guesses as to why they turned out that way?

Answers:

Women who hate women, in my experience, feel inadequate both as women and sexual beings, and as human beings.

Hatred of your own gender is a sign of neurosis and low self-esteem.

There are men who hate men, too. Often they are highly combative, aggressive, militaristic types. Guys who read Soldier of Fortune and collect weapons. That type.

Men who act like men, hate men.

Also notice that this person doesn’t consider that perhaps the behavior of women might have some relation to why some women hate them.

Well hates too strong a word but I know what you’re talking about. Ive known many, two of my friends don’t like employing other women. They say its because most women are a pain in the neck and put their children first, i pity any women who do end up working for them. They will get bullied.

These women are in the 10% of women with good spatial relations and logic and that is down to their testosterone levels. They drive a car well, have high sex drives, their own business, compete with men well and have no time for girlish carrying on, well, not in their professional lives anyway.

Feminism has attacked feminimity and the sahm, this is a good example of female misogynists in action.

This person starts by listing the very sensible reasons that employers don’t like hiring women, then “pities” the women who they’re forced to hire by litigation because they’ll get “bullied” (which probably means, told to do their jobs).

The second paragraph is actually a pretty accurate description of me. On those bubble tests in junior high, I scored among the top in the state on spatial relations, which is something males are usually better at. (I am awesome at jigsaw puzzles.) But I’m not cruel enough to think that ordinary women ought to be expected to compete with me in these areas. It’s feminists who do that.

No, but I have met people online who hate their gender, because in certaint religons, the women have no rights, the men have all the power in those countries and religons, so they feel insignificant, when women in other countries hear about this, it probably makes them feel insignificant, to know that in other cultures, women have no power.

This sounds like a stupid reason, but actually does make some sense. Feminists panic at accurate history because it implies that very few women are ever going to achieve anything much outside the field of child-rearing. Also, history shows pretty clearly that only in a Judeo-Christian patriarchy do women have any rights or freedoms at all, but in such a culture, you have to, you know, follow rules and stuff. You can’t even kill your own babies! You’re expected to limit how many men you screw! Talk about repression!

No. Feminism struggles to promote the idea that women are all-good and all-kind, and anyone who sees womens’ fallibility is a misogynist of some kind.

Edit
An example of this mentality is given by Prof Ann Oakley (1984):
“Men are the enemies of women. …Without men the world would be a better place: softer, kinder, more loving; calmer, quieter, more humane” (in Taking It Like a Woman).

Yes!

Some airhead named Tracey offers this:

I don’t personally know any, no. But the ones who exist…Ann Coulter, for example…seem to get there by falling for the Conservative (read: U.S. neo-conservative) dogma hook, line and sinker. As neo-cons must march lock-step with one another (it seems to be a requirement for membership to the club), female neo-cons seems to express the same disdain for women doing anything but 50s style mothering as any other misogynist.

This, Tracey, is why females such as yourself should devote yourselves to cooking for your husband and not try to vote. Also, why you should follow St. Paul’s admonition to be silent in public, so that others won’t find out how much of an idiot you are.

Rio Madeira responded:

Yes. Phyllis Schlafly, Ann Coulter, and Charlotte Allen. I think they’re somewhat afraid that other women will make it to their level, so they subliminally try to keep them from making those attempts by:

-insisting that women can’t adequately combine a career and a family (when Schlafly has done it herself)
-trying to justify disenfranchising women (when Coulter has been caught up in a minor controversy over voting in the wrong precinct)
-talking about how stupid women are (yes, Allen wrote an entire article about it)

The first paragraph: none of these women are even slightly afraid that more than a tiny handful of women will ever “make it to their level”. Nearly all women are much too stupid to do any such thing, as Tracey and Rio Madeira are demonstrating.

The first point in the list is a lie. Schafly raised her children first, then had a career. She didn’t combine it.

I think the article mentioned is this one, which I’ve linked before: We Scream, We Swoon. How Dumb Can We Get?

Ronnie said:

Yes, they are called feminists. They hate women who are beautiful, they hate women that are loved by men, they hate women with good families… It makes them feel this small
——> . So as we all know, feminism is a movement that is based on hate towards men, women, and children.

Here’s an interesting one:

I know plenty of women who are their own worse enemy but to answer your question, the only women I can think of being misogynistic, would be heterosexual women who hate themselves and by extension hate all other women and/or lesbian ‘players.’

…Huh? Why would straight women be led by self-loathing to hate lesbian “players”?

In sum, not one responder correctly answered the question. The correct answer is, “Female misogynists become such by watching the appalling behavior exhibited by the majority of Western women today.”

The Limits of My Misogyny

March 5, 2008

Since on this blog I’m coming clean and stating outright that I am a misogynist as well as an antifeminist, I should probably define the limits of my male chauvinism.

Dave Sim’s two (in)famous misogynist essays are beyond my limits. The essays, I hasten to add, have some vital points. For example, this bit from his Tangent:

It seems to me that it is typical of the “ists” – communists, feminists and homosexualists – that they genuinely see “re-education” as viable and not a violation, tolerant and not totalitarian and that they have always failed to see – whether it is in their communist or feminist-homosexualist incarnation – that “politically correct” is an oxymoron. It is only the totalitarian who sees the goal of politics to be the determination of the One Right Way to Think and it is only the totalitarian who fails to recognize that politics is the vital give-and-take, parry-and-thrust – the on-going give-and-take and parry-and-thrust – implied by the existence of contending viewpoints. As an example, I firmly believe that feminism is a misguided attempt to raise women above their place, which I firmly believe is secondary to that of men. I firmly believe that homosexuality – not homosexualists themselves – belongs at the margins of society and behind closed doors. I firmly believe that it must be tolerated just as I firmly believe it should not be publicly celebrated. “In your face” celebrated, I mean.

But I do not envision a world – nor would I endorse a world – where the feminist and the homosexualist needed to be “re-educated” or “have their consciousness raised” (or whatever feminist-homosexualist euphemism you prefer for brainwashing, indoctrination and sloganeering) so as to compel them to make their beliefs conform to my beliefs. Nor do I become indignant when my beliefs are challenged. I am more than willing to sharpen and clarify distinctions between my own views and the views of others (as I am doing at considerable length here) and I am always more than content to “agree to disagree,” but I confess that it does trouble me a great deal when political arrivistes like the homosexualists and the feminists think that what engenders a natural visceral reaction in another human being should – or even could – be modified to suit their prejudices as to what that reaction in their view – should be.

He is certainly right that women are chiefly creatures of emotion, and some of his arguments against feminism are penetrating; these essays do belong on any misogynist’s reading list. But he also goes into a lot of blather about “the female Void” that makes very little sense. That kind of vague mystical speculation belongs to the other side; we, the adherents of hard masculine reason, need to stick to the hard, proveable facts. (Mr. Sim also asserts that the owning of house pets was 1) invented by women, not by the cavemen who domesticated dogs to help them hunt, and 2) will bring about the doom of civilization. So we see that he is a bit of a nut.)

At least Mr. Sim acknowledges that there are exceptions. Otto Weininger, whose Sex And Character is often cited by misogynists, does not. He points out some common female flaws, but does not have the insight Mr. Sim does. Instead he relies entirely on mystical blather far more absurd than Mr. Sim’s “female Void”: “The man of genius possesses, like everything else, the complete female in himself; but woman herself is only a part of the Universe, and the part can never be the whole; femaleness can never include genius. This lack of genius on the part of woman is inevitable because woman is not a monad, and cannot reflect the Universe.”

Before I get on with not reflecting the Universe, let me relate that the book also contains many antisemitic statements. Mr. Weininger was what is now known as a “self-hating Jew” (a category to which Karl Marx also belonged). The book is a disappointing waste of time. If you are curious, the book is available online; don’t waste your money as well as your time.

There are a handful of female geniuses in every century. They will always be rarer than male geniuses, no matter how much social engineering we indulge in to try to change it.

Men invented the sciences and most fields of human endeavour. While the women who could discover the structure of DNA or invent the hydrometer are astronomically rare, there are quite a few women who can learn to be doctors, engineers, and so on. There are more women with the mental ability to finish medical school than there are women with the temperament to spend decades working in medicine or similarly demanding fields, however. And of course, in this age when women can force employers to hire them by threatening lawsuits, a sensible person will question whether a given woman in a difficult profession got there by merit, and will avoid her services. Yet another service feminism has done for women!

There are many more women who can be quite competent (in endeavours less difficult than, say, engineering) and moral so long as they have male guidance and authority supporting them. This can be somewhat indirect. A single young woman living on her own during the first half of the 20th century might not have had a husband or father directly guiding her, and possibly there were several female supervisors in between her and her male boss, but she nonetheless was living under a male government, protected and restricted by a male police force, educated by a school system which had been designed and was still at least headed by men, and morally educated by religions operated by male clergymen with a masculine Deity at their center. She knew that even if she didn’t have a father or husband to put his foot down if she began behaving badly, there were still policemen, male judges, male lawmakers, and at the end a masculine God, all of whom would put their feet down if her behavior warranted it.

Indeed, I often think that feminism is a prolonged plea on the part of women for men, as a class, to put their feet down. Feminist excesses, like disruptive behavior from a neglected child, are an attempt to make some man tell them to sit down and shut up. Unfortunately, the time when this would have been effective was some decades ago. After what has been done to our laws and our social fabric, one man’s putting his foot down is ineffective. Things will not improve until all men can be persuaded to do so, and that is not going to happen anytime soon.

What is a female misogynist?

March 4, 2008

One of the male chauvinist bloggers I have been following and learning from for some while, the Counter-Feminist, has just left me a flattering comment, which of course made my day. He mused that it was ironic that I, a woman, have a lower opinion of women than he does.

The irony has certainly occurred to me before, but it is far from unique. Florence King is also a female misogynist. Her most recent book cites the habit of female Congresspersons of taking their babies and toddlers to work with them (no, I am not making this up), and reveals that Dashiel Hammett actually wrote the works allegedly written by Lillian Hellman. (All of this comes with citations, but as I don’t own a copy, I can’t provide them offhand.)

Miss King defines it thus: A female misogynist is an exceptionally independent, self-confident woman who starts out assuming that other women are just like her and gets dismayed and impatient when they aren’t. If you follow the link, she provides quotations from many of history’s great women pouring scorn upon ordinary women.

The difference between me and women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton or Simone de Beauvoir is that I recognize the great value to society of normal women. For most of history, all women, including the handful of geniuses, were forced into the role of ordinary women. Nowadays, ordinary women are driven out of the home, where they could be happy and make a valuable contribution to society, and expected to live the demanding lives that only a few dozen women per century find congenial.

Had I lived in a saner era – any other era in history, really – I would still be a male chauvinist, but I would not be a misogynist. I would not have had havoc wreaked on my life by women bereft of the support of male authority helping them to behave morally. I would not have to watch as women gleefully destroyed civilization before my eyes. Nor would I be constantly plagued by hearing women repeat the feminist nonsense they’ve gotten from magazines or from their professors, having no understanding of the tremendous harm these notions of theirs are doing. In short, women of sane eras do not deserve to be hated, though they remain inferior to men.

In patriarchal eras, women are useful members of society and deserve considerable admiration. In feminist eras, all women can do is destroy, and they deserve only distrust.