May 14, Stereotypes: I dislike the fact that people think I should act one way because of my sex, personality, or nationality.
The Logic of Misogyny is an accessible and timely exploration of a particular aspect of gendered oppression that has received surprisingly little scholarly treatment.
There is a lot of feminist work on sexism, oppression, and patriarchy, but misogyny, as Manne defines it, is distinct from all of these.
Her purpose in this book is to describe misogyny as a distinct force present in contemporary society, and to show how it shapes public life. Misogyny, according to Manne, is like the law enforcement arm of a patriarchal social order.
Misogyny is not a matter of individual attitudes or sexist hatred of women, and in fact it is entirely consistent to claim that misogynist acts can be committed by people who desired women, perhaps loved them in some way.
His reaction was to lash out against what he saw as an unjust state of affairs—a violation of the patriarchal social order according to which he was owed the women he desired—and attempt to punish many of the women he saw as unjustly withholding attention from him by shooting people at a nearby sorority.
The tool that Manne has provided us with for understanding this is a framework under which misogynist violence is a matter of maintaining subordination. She argues against such things in terms of what she calls the naive conception of misogyny, which sees misogyny as a matter of individual hatred or hostility towards women—individually or as a group.
That gendered violence is more complex than simple hatred should not be surprising to anyone familiar with statistics of violence against women, since the majority of violence enacted against women is at the hands of people they know, often current or former intimate partners, and sometimes in the name of love or desire.
It would seem more difficult to consider such violence as misogynist under the naive conception, since these crimes seem motivated by something other than hatred of the women who are victimized by it.
Rather, it is a matter of their enforcement of a certain social ranking that places women below men. Unlike sexism, its role is not to justify what the role of women ought to be, but, given a system under which women are held to be subordinate, it enforces such subordination by means that are sometimes coercive or violent.
As such, we are better able to see what unreasonable demands patriarchy makes of women. Sometimes, this takes the form of anger and hostility towards successful women, rising, perhaps, above their station, or taking positions that men should rightfully be holding. Though when it comes to the goods that women are supposed to be providing, it is not always the case that there is a particular woman whose duty it is to provide them.
In calling himself an incel involuntary celibatehe, and others who adopt the label, mark themselves as being among men who are unjustly deprived of feminine goods. All this continues to speak against the naive conception of misogyny that views it as a more straightforward phenomenon of anger and hatred.
But like incel violence, this can also be seen as a misplaced reaction against low status in the case of incels or loss of status in the case of many annihilators. More specifically, she argues against a view called humanism, which is a conjunction of several distinct but interrelated theses.
This view takes dehumanization to be a key factor in many different forms of oppression, though particularly war crimes.
Under such a view, the failure to treat or recognize others as fellow humans is the best explanation of why we treat each other in cruel, humiliating, and degrading ways. And consequently, the best remedy for it would be to find strategies through which women could be portrayed as fully human, or in which common humanity could be showcased.
Given the nature of the moral goods that many perpetrators of misogynist violence see as being unjustly withheld, their stance on women seems incompatible with one of dehumanization. More specifically, incels like Rodger view women as being capable of love, affection, and deep emotional relationships; after all, these are the very things that they are demanding of the women they resent.
But these capacities are distinctively human ones, and so dehumanization as an explanation of their cruelty towards women seems difficult to square with their stated attitudes. But such a stance towards them positions them as human rivals or usurpers, which is incompatible with the humanist thesis as it has been characterized.
While I think she is right, in the examples she considers, such as hostility towards women such as Clinton and Gillard, that dehumanization plays no significant role, much of the literature on dehumanization focuses on ways in which it is applied to people of particular ethnic groups, rather than people of a particular gender identity.
We do not, after all, generally want to have sex with monsters, regardless of their outward appearance. Now, I grant to Manne that we do not typically want sexual relationships with the uncanny or monstrous—incels who desire sexual relationships with women might hate or resent women but still view them as human.
But it is not clear that wartime rape and other instances of rape are sexual encounters, much less relationships. I think that we could view rape in such cases as a way of degrading a certain kind of good or loot, namely women.
Soldiers in war might burn homes in a show of dominance over enemy civilians, just as they might steal valuables. They might just as well use rape as a way of destroying or defiling what is seen as essentially property. What Manne gets right, though, is that we have no reason to think that misogynist violence generally occurs because women are dehumanized.
Factors such as ableism, racism, and transphobia may intersect with both misogyny and sexism in complex ways that are certainly worth further exploration.
Women, as Manne argues, are positioned as providers of particular kinds of goods, particularly moral goods of care, service, and attention.Though men statistically make more money, according to 24/7, men are more likely to accept jobs that women wont.
Also, men have become slaves in society to women. Who holds the door? Pays for dates? Gets certain things to impress the other sex? Both situations have perks and different down sides. However, from feminism’s beginnings, certain groups of men have been arguing that maybe men, not women, are society’s real victims (Gilmore ).
The men’s rights movement (MRM) is inherently reactionary in nature, arguing concepts like reverse sexism.
Japan was a fairly equitable matriarchal society until Confucian ideas immigrated from China. These ideas defined Japanese society up until the end of World War II. The integration of Confucian hierarchical structures where men were dominate shifted gender roles into a patriarchal system.
Sexism in the Workplace Sexism in education is clearly associated with sexism in the workplace. When women are expected to “stay in the home,” they are unable to access the necessary educational resources to compete with men in the job market. Your Handy Guide To -Isms (Racism, Sexism, Etc.) So on a daily basis, I find myself interacting with people (mostly on Facebook) who don’t understand racism, sexism.
Introduction; Sexism and the Law; Sexism and the church; family life is the most important thing for society. Does this deny women their rights?
Men often define these women along evolutionary psychology lines—women who are sexually-selective, faithful, physically attractive, and have a pleasant, respectful disposition (for more on these. It's hard to understand the right's hysterical hatred of feminism in general, and women like Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren specifically, without understanding the Men's Rights movement. INTRODUCTION: "Gender discrimination, also known as sexism, refers to prejudice or discrimination based on sex and/ or gender, as well as conditions or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on gender" (Women and Gender Discrimination).
"The language of the church is sexist too. Luke’s Gospel says Jesus took as much notice of women as he did of men. The Bible and Sexism. In the Bible, God frees the oppressed and helps those.