We intend to look at a number of derogatory epithets (misogyny, racism, homophobia, sexism, isolationism, xenophobia and nativism) which are generally ascribed to people of the social-political Right, by those of the social-political Left. We take them one at a time thus, we address misogyny within…
The dictionary defines misogyny: “hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, or prejudice against women.” We note that the term may be used to characterize the individual to which the label is attached simply because the individual may oppose an advocacy which is thought to advance the interest of women. Or it may be that the individual – or group – who is said to be misogynistic may not agree with the way women – who cast the epithet “misogynist” as an aspersion – regard women in general. Thus, a male – or female – that subscribes to a view of women that would be in agreement with most of human history, viz: “those women are predominantly potential child-bearers and wives – who will bear and nurture succeeding generations,” is likely said to be a misogynist…
Does possessing such a view mean that the male or female holding such a view “hates women?” This would mean those possessed of such a view desire women to be harmed… What harm is willed upon those – holding to an orthodoxy – by/from others having views which differs from that orthodoxy?
Similarly, we ask how does possessing such a view – contrary to the view avowed by anti-misogynists (feminists) – indicate that the possessor of the contrary view “dislikes, mistrusts, or have a prejudice against women”? It would seem that those which have the temerity to hold views other than those espoused by anti-misogynists are generally berated as misogynists and thus are subjected to vituperation i.e., they seemed to be mistrusted, disliked and are subjects of ill-will because they do not affirm the feminist advocacy…
Those that study morality* generally encounter the argument that homogenizing a group of individuals is immoral because they – as individuals – are each possessed with unique qualities, abilities and aspirations, and as free-willed rational beings they should not be treated as a herd, but as unique entities, each possessed of the dignity which attends a unique creation of God…
*Note: any that dare discuss morality and claim something other than a theistic worldview are dully self-conflicted – and likely unconsciously – possessed of inherent contradictory views; such inherent conflicts need be acknowledged and resolved before opining on any matter whatsoever.
Now does it follow that those that hold that the optimal vocation of a woman is that of a “child bearer and wife” hate women? Are they standing in the way of a women becoming a medical doctor, a lawyer, an astronaut, a baker or candle-stick maker? We guess that the answer – if asked, and answered honestly – would be a resounding, No! Now if that is the case, and of course, it is the case; from whence is the origin of the derogatory appellation “misogynist?”
Our guess, is that those utilizing the deleterious epithet generally do so reflexively** and do so as a weapon whereby their perceived opposition is characterized in such a way as to be de-humanized and de-legitimized, thus clearing the decks of opposition to the goal of the anti-misogynists (feminists), that goal being the acquisition of some legal policy or position which allows them near immunity from social, or moral redress…
** Many adherents to the cause of “advancement of women” gleefully “take their seat-on-the-bus” without a clue as to what is the destination… Maureen Dowd – columnist for the New York Times penned such a column “What’s a Modern Girl to Do?” October 30, 2005 appearing in the New York Times Magazine; within she intimates her lament at having enlisted into the feminist movement without “seeing” the future her choices produced… The Dowd article may be viewed here: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/magazine/whats-a-modern-girl-to-do.html
As an aside, and for completeness we should note – before we close this note – that any characterization in which “A” ascribes to “B” requires that “A” know “B’s” motivations better than “B” knows them him, or herself; “A’s” claim – that “B” is a misogynist – may be valid, but the validity of the claim may only established with high probability through dispassionate dialectical discourse, or with absolute certainty if “A” happens to be God. Such is the case regarding all ascriptions…
In the end, and we think Dowd’s piece bears this out, the anti-misogynists – or feminists – are animated by something akin to what ostensibly motivate Lucifer’s rebellion against God. Just as Lucifer objected to (raged against) the objective order – an order which contradicted Lucifer’s view of how things ought to be ordered – so too do feminists object/rage against the natural order and their objection and rage are predicated upon having assimilated consciously – or otherwise – an ideology, and as we point out in our blog post: “Regarding Ideology” – all ideologies begin with a denial – or rejection of objective reality, and thus demand all things be subordinate to the ideology.
Sadly, an ideology has much in common with a cult, and those which subscribe to such views – in denying the natural order, ultimately subordinate some of their deepest impetuses (e.g., being a happily married woman surrounded by children and grandchildren) to that view; only come to realize what opportunities passed them by years advanced beyond those opportunities; they like Maureen Dowd – who seems possessed of aura of regret – ultimately chose haughtily to exchange gold for lead, and castigated – with aspersions (misogynist) – those that attempted their edification…
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.