Yes, but it is a fact of systemic misogyny that a woman has to decide to take that risk, which is heightened for her compared to a man. Look at the extreme misogyny directed at AOC for instance: most right-wing talking points are that she’s a shrill, air-headed bartender when that couldn’t be further from the truth.AmericanKestrel wrote: ↑July 26th, 2022, 1:24 pmBut the was bad judgement call on the part of Clintom to has not managed that situation. She has made several bad judgements. Warren, AOC, or even Klobuchar might have responded differently. Clinton did not have to sit there and take it. She chose to.Astro Cat wrote: ↑July 25th, 2022, 2:26 pm As an aside (and sorry for the politics, for the record I'm not particularly fond of any of the people I'm about to mention), I was acutely aware during the US presidential debates of the gendered politics when Trump was speaking over Clinton and she had to basically sit there and take it because she knew what would happen if she responded to it (her perceived competency would plummet as a "moody woman"), whereas Biden [in?]famously was able to respond "would you shut up man?"
What is the root cause of misogyny?
- Astro Cat
- Posts: 451
- Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
- Location: USA
Re: What is the root cause of misogyny?
--Richard Feynman
- Astro Cat
- Posts: 451
- Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
- Location: USA
Re: What is the root cause of misogyny?
Well, that is a good question. What is nature and what is nurture about masculinity and femininity? I’m not convinced they are mostly nature; I think that nurture plays the greater part.AmericanKestrel wrote: ↑July 26th, 2022, 1:20 pmBut what came first? Misogyny or stereotypes?Astro Cat wrote: ↑July 25th, 2022, 1:26 pm
I'm not sure it's that, either.
I'm sure that some misogyny is resentment over rejection, some of it is competitiveness, etc., but I think it's more likely that misogyny stems from cultural stereotypes over what femininity is.
Masculinity is associated with being rational for instance, while femininity is associated with being irrationally emotional. If you pull up a list comparing masculine and feminine traits, most masculine traits are positive with a few exceptions like being "cold" or "cruel"; but for the most part "negative" masculine traits remind me of those awkward interview questions like "what is your greatest weakness?" where the respondee supplies "weaknesses" that are actually strengths (e.g., "I work too hard"). A person with all of the stereotypical masculine traits is a sharp thinker, a calm reasoner, a no-BS, straight-to-the-point person that projects strength and mastery.
Compare that to the list of traits associated with femininity, and you would get a witless, emotional, gossiping, unfocused wreck of a person that's too delicate a flower to do anything not submissively passive.
'Is femininity the same as being a woman or is it a taint imposed on women by a misogynistic society?
--Richard Feynman
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: July 8th, 2022, 3:14 am
Re: What is the root cause of misogyny?
You can ignore facts and data to your choosing, but giving up with "gender dysphoria" is a cop-out.AmericanKestrel wrote: ↑July 22nd, 2022, 8:39 amThank you for the link and looking forward to your comments.
Linking gender dysphoria to sexism and misogyny has no bearing to reality. The very idea of women privilege is cynical and misogyny on its own, not to mention the bias in attributing motives to transgenders.
Little boys and girls know what gender they are. And they know about sex at the onset of puberty, when their sexual organs mature.
The Lies begin when political organizations try to twist "reality" around, pretending that boys can be girls, girls can be boys, and that they should be so.
The Lies are the cause of "Dysphoria".
An analogy would be, forcing adults to admit that Santa Clause is real, flies around the world delivering presents on Christmas, and if the adult doesn't say so, then their Health Insurance will be cut, bank accounts seized, and they will be de-personed from social media platforms.
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: July 8th, 2022, 3:14 am
Re: What is the root cause of misogyny?
Not reproducing = Death in nature.Sy Borg wrote: ↑July 23rd, 2022, 4:20 pmI think of misogyny, misandry, racism, transphobia, animal hatred as more or less the same thing. Fear that breeds hate. It might be fear of not getting laid and being considered a loser. It might be fear of being outshone by younger, prettier and better educated peers. It might be fear of the unknown, of emasculation, of losing power, of germs or unpredictability.
The root in each category of hatefulness is fear and, from that basis, as Sculptor noted, the reasons diverge.
Death is the ultimate fear. Sculptor is wrong. These things can be attributed to a single cause: Fear of Death, from which all Fear springs eternal.
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: July 8th, 2022, 3:14 am
Re: What is the root cause of misogyny?
No, I'm fully correct.Astro Cat wrote: ↑July 25th, 2022, 2:08 pmOk, I'm finally at a keyboard. First, just a reminder that this paper disputes that MTF is "immensely more popular" than FTM transitions today (they are about equal). It is true that for a long while MTF transitions were much more popular though, so I will note that you were partially correct at least.
Female-to-male transition will never come close to the inverse. So, you need to ask yourself, why is the demand for a female to pretend to be male, so low by comparison?
None of what you said matters, if there is a gender difference in STEM aptitude.Astro Cat wrote: ↑July 25th, 2022, 2:08 pmWhat I'm more concerned about here is this notion of "male privilege" and "female privilege" you have. I don't wish to dispute that either exist because I agree that they do. What I will dispute is your assertion that male privilege is a "myth" or that trans people make decisions to transition based on wanting gendered privilege.
The main male privilege is essentially the absence of suffering systemic misogyny. Women are promoted less often even when their work ethic matches men (in STEM, men are also 1.5 times more likely to get hired than equally qualified women in the first place*). Men are three times more likely to interrupt a woman than another man in workplace or school environments.
(* -- also consider that in STEM, people have handed out résumés that are exactly the same in every respect except some have male-sounding names and some have female-sounding names. In all studies, the male candidates were found to be exceptionally more competent than the female candidates despite the only difference being whether their name sounded like a man's name or not).
If people are told about a CEO named Morgan that "tends to offer their opinion" and "talks more than most CEOs," it turns out that their opinion of this hypothetical CEO depends on whether they were presented as Mr. Morgan or Ms. Morgan. Despite having the exact same description and résumé, people rated Mr. Morgan as being more competent than other CEOs while Ms. Morgan was rated less competent.
A woman's assertiveness in the workplace is more likely to be [url=http://web.stanford.edu/group/ipc/pubs/2005Choi.pdf]interpreted as anger[/url] rather than strength (an assumption of incompetence: an assertive woman is "moody" or "bossy" rather than competent), and angry women (whether actually angry or not) are perceived as more incompetent than angry men under the same circumstances. Women's anger (again, real or not) is stereotyped as being internalized (e.g., "she's just a moody woman, that's the way that she is") whereas men's anger is stereotyped as external ("he's dealing with a lot that's happening to him"). Compared to male supervisors and bosses, people remember negative traits and forget positive traits more often if the supervisor in question is a woman.
Is there? Are males naturally dominant at math, than females? What do the facts and data say??
Oh, wait, we can't look into that data without being accused of sexism and racism anymore.... guess we need to guess on it:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/200 ... nderissues
Just as they are "stereotyped" to give birth to children??
Or is that "equal" among men too, that men give birth equal amount of times as women??
And if men are not giving birth equal amount to women, then that needs to be addressed right??
Why shouldn't women have the Privilege to not work?Astro Cat wrote: ↑July 25th, 2022, 2:08 pmthey are assumed to be less competent than men at leadership positions because it's assumed women can't make tough choices. Taken with the paragraph above, this leads to a catch-22 whereby women seek to avoid being perceived as angry, which makes them appear stereotypically passive and unsuitable for leadership. This is even more problematic because seeking to avoid stereotypes causes stereotype backlash whereby they are simply stereotyped more.
66% of women have reported feeling their voices are devalued at work, and 41% have experienced a sexist workplace environment. When women leave the workforce (particularly STEM), many report psychosocial gendered reasons (e.g., systemic misogyny) for leaving. 4 in 10 drop out due to having to juggle home life with their professional life, which brings me to the next major subject point.
Women face a lot more gendered emotional and cognitive labor expectations than men do. Women are expected to provide emotional and cognitive support at work as unpaid, unrecognized labor; while women are still expected to take the brunt of unpaid emotional and cognitive work at home. This isn't because they want to, either (we don't): it's more gendered cultural expectations.
Now, of course men have to deal with some systemic misandry as well. Systemic misandry isn't good any more than systemic misogyny is good. We can agree that systemic misandry should be combatted. What we won't agree on is that men don't have privilege. They absolutely do. To have privilege is not an accusation of specific wrongdoing, it just means to not have to deal with systemic problems that someone else would have to deal with.
Is it a privilege to work, or, to stay home and raise a family?
Which has more privilege?
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: July 8th, 2022, 3:14 am
Re: What is the root cause of misogyny?
"Mulan" is a movie and story about a female, pretending to be male, to go to battle as a soldier in war.
Where is the story, about a man, pretending to be a woman, to go to battle as a soldier in war???
Do you know why such a story, simply does not exist?
Maybe there is your "root cause of misogyny"???
- AmericanKestrel
- Posts: 356
- Joined: May 22nd, 2021, 6:26 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Yagnyavalkya
- Location: US
Re: What is the root cause of misogyny?
Yes. Misogyny: Why would any man want to be the weaker sex?Wizard22 wrote: ↑August 1st, 2022, 5:30 am Astro Cat, think about this.
"Mulan" is a movie and story about a female, pretending to be male, to go to battle as a soldier in war.
Where is the story, about a man, pretending to be a woman, to go to battle as a soldier in war???
Do you know why such a story, simply does not exist?
Maybe there is your "root cause of misogyny"???
But there is hope. We may yet see a movie like that where gender is fluid, and men can be women.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: What is the root cause of misogyny?
Mulan is a movie where a woman pretends to be a man to be able to do something that she can't do as a woman.Wizard22 wrote: ↑August 1st, 2022, 5:30 am Astro Cat, think about this.
"Mulan" is a movie and story about a female, pretending to be male, to go to battle as a soldier in war.
Where is the story, about a man, pretending to be a woman, to go to battle as a soldier in war???
Do you know why such a story, simply does not exist?
Maybe there is your "root cause of misogyny"???
Some Like It Hot is a movie where men pretend to be women to accomplish something they (think they) can't do as men.
- Astro Cat
- Posts: 451
- Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
- Location: USA
Re: What is the root cause of misogyny?
Hmm. Is that how this conversation's going to go -- am I going to link to scientific, peer-reviewed literature and you're just going to utterly ignore them to continue making your incorrect claims? That doesn't bode well. Well, every reader will be able to see at least that I have presented evidence that your claims, which you're apparently just shooting from the hip, are incorrect, so that should satisfy me.Wizard22 wrote: ↑August 1st, 2022, 5:28 amNo, I'm fully correct.Astro Cat wrote: ↑July 25th, 2022, 2:08 pmOk, I'm finally at a keyboard. First, just a reminder that this paper disputes that MTF is "immensely more popular" than FTM transitions today (they are about equal). It is true that for a long while MTF transitions were much more popular though, so I will note that you were partially correct at least.
Female-to-male transition will never come close to the inverse. So, you need to ask yourself, why is the demand for a female to pretend to be male, so low by comparison?
So, I question the wisdom of spending my limited time and effort (you realize you're speaking to a woman scientist, right?) to post scientific literature that you've already shown great propensity to just ignore, but I will remind myself that others read this board too, and perhaps it might help them disabuse themselves of misogynistic notions.Wizard22 wrote:None of what you said matters, if there is a gender difference in STEM aptitude.
Is there? Are males naturally dominant at math, than females? What do the facts and data say??
Well, what do the facts and data say? The facts and data say that there are no sex differences in cognitive functions relevant to STEM performance.
For instance, here are some choice quotes from Lindberg et al 2010 on mathematical performance:
Lindberg et al 2010 wrote:Overall, the results of these two studies provide strong evidence of gender similarities in mathematics performance. The heterogeneity of the findings suggests that there are moderator variables that might clarify the pattern of effect sizes. Detecting consistent moderators of gender differences would be strengthened by measures that tap the full range of mathematical reasoning, including items that require sustained reasoning about complex problems. The existence and magnitude of gender differences in mathematics performance varies as a function of many factors, including nation, ethnicity, and age.
Lindberg et al 2010 wrote:The data, however, show that girls are performing as well as boys in mathematics, based on 242 separate studies (Study 1) and 4 large, well-sampled national U. S. data sets (Study 2). The great majority of these girls and boys did their learning in coeducational classrooms. Thus, the argument that girls' mathematics performance suffers in gender-integrated classrooms simply is not supported by the data.
Here is a bit from Jäncke et al 2018 on cognition and neuropsychology in general:Lindberg et al 2010 wrote:These findings also have implications for dispelling stereotypes. Overall, it is clear that, in the U.S. and some other nations, girls have reached parity with boys in mathematics performance.
I could go on, though (as I've said) your previous behavior when presented with data is discouraging in terms of taking the effort to do so. I will say that if I were to characterize the trend of the literature it is that:Jäncke et al 2018 wrote:Many use neuroscientific sex/gender differences to explain and partly justify social and behavioral differences. However, the research of the past 50 years and particularly of the last 10 years has shown that sex/gender differences in terms of cognitive functions are less clear than previously assumed. Both sexes are more similar in respect to many psychological functions, and it is also now clear how strong the influence of culture and social stereotypes is. In addition, the sex/gender differences in brain anatomy and brain function are less clear. There are some relatively strong but also many moderate or even weak sex/gender differences in terms of brain anatomy and brain function. These differences are not large enough to support a clear sexual dimorphism. Thus, there is no strong evidence available supporting the existence of a typical “female” or “male” brain.
--Gendered differences in cognitive abilities have existed in the past
--Those gendered differences varied wildly by country of origin, age, socioeconomic status, etc.
--As gender equality has increased, gendered differences have generally decreased to the point of vanishing
--All meta-analyses (e.g., studies combining more than 200 individual studies) in specific fields of cognition such as mathematical ability, logical reasoning, processing speed, and so on show an equivalency between the sexes
--Spatial reasoning has the largest gendered difference (with women being better at object location memory), but also the most research showing sociopsychological (e.g., cultural, "nurture" rather than "nature") reasons for the discrepancy that vanishes when accounted for
So the answer to your question, "what does the data say," is that there isn't really sexual dimorphism in cognitive function.
First, that you assert you "can't look into that data without being accused of sexism and racism" only goes to prove you haven't bothered (the literature is absolutely rife with research into gendered differences) or don't know how to conduct research.Wizard22 wrote:Oh, wait, we can't look into that data without being accused of sexism and racism anymore.... guess we need to guess on it:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/200 ... nderissues
Second, you have linked to an article here where Lawrence Summers, an economist (not a scientist, and especially not a psychologist or sociologist), says some predictably ignorant things: the oldest boy in the Old Boys Club said something incredibly Old Boyish, and water is wet. I trust I do not have to walk readers through why they should not particularly care what Lawrence Summers has to say on sociology.
I'm not sure what sort of chip is on your shoulder (what woman hurt you?), but being cast as a nurturer doesn't only mean taking care of children (though, it can feel that way sometimes). It means to be expected to take most of the emotional and cognitive labor at work and at home: to be expected to listen and empathize all the time, for instance, is unpaid and generally unrecognized labor.Wizard22 wrote:Just as they are "stereotyped" to give birth to children??
Or is that "equal" among men too, that men give birth equal amount of times as women??
And if men are not giving birth equal amount to women, then that needs to be addressed right??
I am not sure you really understand what the word privilege means. Women have been stuck at home for large swathes of history and suffered deeply for it. We couldn't even open a line of credit without a husband's permission until 1974, that's not even that long ago. Women have been forced to stay in unhappy situations for a long time because they had no other recourse and nowhere else to turn.Wizard22 wrote:Why shouldn't women have the Privilege to not work?
Is it a privilege to work, or, to stay home and raise a family?
Which has more privilege?
--Richard Feynman
- Astro Cat
- Posts: 451
- Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
- Location: USA
Re: What is the root cause of misogyny?
I am not sure what your point is. Nobody disputes there is sexual dimorphism in our bodies. Through most of history, martial prowess had to coincide with things like upper body strength that women just aren't as good at naturally. Now, that doesn't mean that societies would still need to ban women from the military (as with many things there is always going to be a curve with overlap; the relatively fewer women that could hack it might as well be allowed to, after all). But I at least understand why it was the case historically.Wizard22 wrote: ↑August 1st, 2022, 5:30 am Astro Cat, think about this.
"Mulan" is a movie and story about a female, pretending to be male, to go to battle as a soldier in war.
Where is the story, about a man, pretending to be a woman, to go to battle as a soldier in war???
Do you know why such a story, simply does not exist?
Maybe there is your "root cause of misogyny"???
The physical dimorphism seems to be less important in ballistic projectile-based warfare (e.g., firing guns), so I'm not surprised to see women in militaries now.
--Richard Feynman
-
- Posts: 1110
- Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
- Location: canada
Re: What is the root cause of misogyny?
To start off with your premise is false, in many cultures, women are revered and men are of secondary status. What a lot of crap did you spend any time whatsoever thinking about this. Men's traditional role has always been to serve the wife and family, that is his traditional role, the provider, to the degree that it is the main issue in the mating game even today. Women marry up and never down, a rich man may marry an attractive waitress, a rich women will marry a richer man, or someone on the same economic level, never down. Men and women are two aspects of one thing, the human species, and there has in this relationship always between sexual tension. Women's militancy of today is a product of modernity, when things were a little more elemental not so many sitting jobs, women didn't want a job in the coal mines, it was a more hostile working world. I think you have been brain washed by the powerful feminist propaganda machine; it does tend to be on the toxic side. It is true women have in the past been submissive and over time they were programmed that way, but so were the males programmed, with changing working and cultural changes it is only predictable that women will demand more of an equal standing but I do not believe most men hate women, do you think they hate their mothers, their sisters and their girlfriends, no this thinking is the toxic environment of the present. The culture is not healthy, relationships are not healthy and the thinking is unhealthy.AmericanKestrel wrote: ↑May 27th, 2021, 1:06 pm A recent topic about what we inherit from our mothers spurred this thought.
Every religion, and every society, in all times have demonstrated hatred of women in vile to subtle ways. Yet women are one half of the human race, and importantly the only means of propagating the species as possessors of a uterus.
Racism, and caste, as evil as it is, is ultimately, in truth, a convenient construct as a means of exploitation. Female sex is not a construct. They have always worked as hard as men, even through pregnancy, And bear children, the future farm hands. What was the natural benefit of the hate and oppression?
What is the pay off?
A few things I can think of that spurs this hatred:
Vagina/uterus envy.
They are property that can be stolen, elope, and thus a liability.
They can seduce one to lose his senses.
Men are naturally gay, and thus women are competition.
We hate that which we fear. What is the cause of fear?
What do you think?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: What is the root cause of misogyny?
To my view it's not nearly so complicated. Sexism and thus misogyny, is merely tribalism that happens to run along gender lines. As to your theories, women marry down all the time, haven't you heard of the allure of the "bad boy" (loser) in the case of successful women?popeye1945 wrote: ↑August 18th, 2023, 7:37 am
To start off with your premise is false, in many cultures, women are revered and men are of secondary status. What a lot of crap did you spend any time whatsoever thinking about this. Men's traditional role has always been to serve the wife and family, that is his traditional role, the provider, to the degree that it is the main issue in the mating game even today. Women marry up and never down, a rich man may marry an attractive waitress, a rich women will marry a richer man, or someone on the same economic level, never down. Men and women are two aspects of one thing, the human species, and there has in this relationship always between sexual tension. Women's militancy of today is a product of modernity, when things were a little more elemental not so many sitting jobs, women didn't want a job in the coal mines, it was a more hostile working world. I think you have been brain washed by the powerful feminist propaganda machine; it does tend to be on the toxic side. It is true women have in the past been submissive and over time they were programmed that way, but so were the males programmed, with changing working and cultural changes it is only predictable that women will demand more of an equal standing but I do not believe most men hate women, do you think they hate their mothers, their sisters and their girlfriends, no this thinking is the toxic environment of the present. The culture is not healthy, relationships are not healthy and the thinking is unhealthy.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: What is the root cause of misogyny?
Belindi wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 6:38 am The root cause of misogyny is pragmatic as are all causes of ideas. Misogyny is the response of some males to the encroachment of female political power. Female political power contravenes the practical rule that females are more needed to replace dead warriors than they are needed to be active defenders and aggressors.
That, LuckyR, is the core of much human behaviour, although often it is obscured by the many overlaid surface prejudices we so often display. Them and us.
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: What is the root cause of misogyny?
Odd, that. I always thought it was men. It is, after all, men who exhibit and practise misogyny...
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: What is the root cause of misogyny?
You seem to equate strength with work-done. I'm not sure that follows...
"Who cares, wins"
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023