What is the root cause of misogyny?

[Belindi]

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.

[LuckyR]

If only the glass ceiling only applied to women "long dead". Alas, it's still going strong.

People think total gender equality was solved eons ago, but most people don't realize women weren't guaranteed the right to open a credit card until the 1970s. That's only 50 years ago, that's not even two generations.

When people think about things like diversity with AA and the like they aren't thinking about the fact that everyone else got up on the backs of marginalized people and broke the ladder rungs on the way up. Then they ask, "why can't you just get up here yourself?" (This is obviously an oversimplification, but there it is).

People, meaning: people not subject to the negative effects of bias. Folks who get the short end of the stick, generally know what's what.

[LuckyR]

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.

Bias is more basic than that. If a distinction can be drawn along any axis, people will show bias against "them" in comparison to "us".

[Belindi]

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.

Bias is more basic than that. If a distinction can be drawn along any axis, people will show bias against "them" in comparison to "us".

I agree with what you say It's an example of a general idea drawn from particular examples. Funny how my pragmatic explanation slides into an ethic! (Universalizability).How did that happen?

[Sculptor1]

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 in 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?

The route cause of misogyny is women. It happens when cultural norms get challenged by women and the term gets invented, whereas before the roles of men and women were set by cultural norms, a point is raised through social change or observations of other cultures where differences are noted and inequalities in opportunities are recognised and this causes reflections upon society in general.

This has nothing to do with envy, as the establishment of roles have originally stemmed from situations of practicality. Human societies from hunter/gatherers to modern societies have all developed horizontal strata which have focussed on abilities and capacities. Men being physically stronger were expected to defend, protect and hunt whereas the women ruled the home and hearth. Though many H/G societies had a massive range of variations, with men involved in child care and women hunting, it seems that the societies from which the Germanic/Latin/Greek worlds evolved had strong gender differentiation. and it is through this that we have our norms. Such differentiation led to privilege and traditional views which led to shame for men wanting to do women's work and vice versa, as if that were natural.

The clash of cultures following the opening up of the world in the last few 100 years shows that our simple traditions were not natural and allowed reflections across the board through race, class and gender. Thus misogyny is, like racism, a reaction and resistence to change.

[Belindi]

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 in 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?

The route cause of misogyny is women. It happens when cultural norms get challenged by women and the term gets invented, whereas before the roles of men and women were set by cultural norms, a point is raised through social change or observations of other cultures where differences are noted and inequalities in opportunities are recognised and this causes reflections upon society in general.

This has nothing to do with envy, as the establishment of roles have originally stemmed from situations of practicality. Human societies from hunter/gatherers to modern societies have all developed horizontal strata which have focussed on abilities and capacities. Men being physically stronger were expected to defend, protect and hunt whereas the women ruled the home and hearth. Though many H/G societies had a massive range of variations, with men involved in child care and women hunting, it seems that the societies from which the Germanic/Latin/Greek worlds evolved had strong gender differentiation. and it is through this that we have our norms. Such differentiation led to privilege and traditional views which led to shame for men wanting to do women's work and vice versa, as if that were natural.

The clash of cultures following the opening up of the world in the last few 100 years shows that our simple traditions were not natural and allowed reflections across the board through race, class and gender. Thus misogyny is, like racism, a reaction and resistence to change.

All the above generally is true. However let's not be too certain. In Scottish fishing communities women carried pick -a- back, male fishermen through cold sea water, to the boats moored offshore so the men could do their work in dry enough clothes.

In some agricultural communities women do most of the heavy work including growing rice while men sit around relaxing. This indeed is one reason women are valuable possessions as they may be used as labour besides having useful wombs.

[Sculptor1]

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 in 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?

The route cause of misogyny is women. It happens when cultural norms get challenged by women and the term gets invented, whereas before the roles of men and women were set by cultural norms, a point is raised through social change or observations of other cultures where differences are noted and inequalities in opportunities are recognised and this causes reflections upon society in general.

This has nothing to do with envy, as the establishment of roles have originally stemmed from situations of practicality. Human societies from hunter/gatherers to modern societies have all developed horizontal strata which have focussed on abilities and capacities. Men being physically stronger were expected to defend, protect and hunt whereas the women ruled the home and hearth. Though many H/G societies had a massive range of variations, with men involved in child care and women hunting, it seems that the societies from which the Germanic/Latin/Greek worlds evolved had strong gender differentiation. and it is through this that we have our norms. Such differentiation led to privilege and traditional views which led to shame for men wanting to do women's work and vice versa, as if that were natural.

The clash of cultures following the opening up of the world in the last few 100 years shows that our simple traditions were not natural and allowed reflections across the board through race, class and gender. Thus misogyny is, like racism, a reaction and resistence to change.

All the above generally is true. However let's not be too certain. In Scottish fishing communities women carried pick -a- back, male fishermen through cold sea water, to the boats moored offshore so the men could do their work in dry enough clothes.

Sounds like a great idea for the Scots. The women can go home and get dry while the men are out in the boats risking their lives.

In some agricultural communities women do most of the heavy work including growing rice while men sit around relaxing. This indeed is one reason women are valuable possessions as they may be used as labour besides having useful wombs.

This is most common where there has been a recent and modern switch from hunting and gathering to an agricultural society, or where modernisation of other kinds have robbed men of their traditional roles.
But do not get me wrong I'm not trying to pretend any of this is going to be fair. Men being stronger will most often mean that roles where strength is at a premium is going to obtain men more power over women as well as power over society in general. Though to take on those roles means playing with a high risk strategy. When the group is invaded those bullies have to do the protection, just like the Scot's fishermen get to keep their feet dry in the short term, but risk drowning whilst piggy-back women are warming their feet by the fire.

[Belindi]

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 in 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?

The route cause of misogyny is women. It happens when cultural norms get challenged by women and the term gets invented, whereas before the roles of men and women were set by cultural norms, a point is raised through social change or observations of other cultures where differences are noted and inequalities in opportunities are recognised and this causes reflections upon society in general.

This has nothing to do with envy, as the establishment of roles have originally stemmed from situations of practicality. Human societies from hunter/gatherers to modern societies have all developed horizontal strata which have focussed on abilities and capacities. Men being physically stronger were expected to defend, protect and hunt whereas the women ruled the home and hearth. Though many H/G societies had a massive range of variations, with men involved in child care and women hunting, it seems that the societies from which the Germanic/Latin/Greek worlds evolved had strong gender differentiation. and it is through this that we have our norms. Such differentiation led to privilege and traditional views which led to shame for men wanting to do women's work and vice versa, as if that were natural.

The clash of cultures following the opening up of the world in the last few 100 years shows that our simple traditions were not natural and allowed reflections across the board through race, class and gender. Thus misogyny is, like racism, a reaction and resistence to change.

All the above generally is true. However let's not be too certain. In Scottish fishing communities women carried pick -a- back, male fishermen through cold sea water, to the boats moored offshore so the men could do their work in dry enough clothes.

Sounds like a great idea for the Scots. The women can go home and get dry while the men are out in the boats risking their lives.

In some agricultural communities women do most of the heavy work including growing rice while men sit around relaxing. This indeed is one reason women are valuable possessions as they may be used as labour besides having useful wombs.

This is most common where there has been a recent and modern switch from hunting and gathering to an agricultural society, or where modernisation of other kinds have robbed men of their traditional roles.
But do not get me wrong I'm not trying to pretend any of this is going to be fair. Men being stronger will most often mean that roles where strength is at a premium is going to obtain men more power over women as well as power over society in general. Though to take on those roles means playing with a high risk strategy. When the group is invaded those bullies have to do the protection, just like the Scot's fishermen get to keep their feet dry in the short term, but risk drowning whilst piggy-back women are warming their feet by the fire.

The fisher wives mended nets and prepared bait outdoors. Some fishwives near the city carried large creels of fish up hill from shore to city to sell. Other fishwives travelled with the herring fleet up and down the coast gutting and salting herring and their hands got in a terrible state. We had some family photos of them as my parents lived in a fisher town and they appeared to be all young smiling lasses.Maybe when they married and had families they gave up that particular work, they would actually have to give it up.

Do you think that when defence and aggression are at a premium the men will bear the burden of that particular heavy work if only because women are needed to replace the warriors who are killed?

Anyway I think you and I agree means of subsistence + womens' fertility is the root cause of misogyny.

[Sculptor1]

The route cause of misogyny is women. It happens when cultural norms get challenged by women and the term gets invented, whereas before the roles of men and women were set by cultural norms, a point is raised through social change or observations of other cultures where differences are noted and inequalities in opportunities are recognised and this causes reflections upon society in general.

This has nothing to do with envy, as the establishment of roles have originally stemmed from situations of practicality. Human societies from hunter/gatherers to modern societies have all developed horizontal strata which have focussed on abilities and capacities. Men being physically stronger were expected to defend, protect and hunt whereas the women ruled the home and hearth. Though many H/G societies had a massive range of variations, with men involved in child care and women hunting, it seems that the societies from which the Germanic/Latin/Greek worlds evolved had strong gender differentiation. and it is through this that we have our norms. Such differentiation led to privilege and traditional views which led to shame for men wanting to do women's work and vice versa, as if that were natural.

The clash of cultures following the opening up of the world in the last few 100 years shows that our simple traditions were not natural and allowed reflections across the board through race, class and gender. Thus misogyny is, like racism, a reaction and resistence to change.

All the above generally is true. However let's not be too certain. In Scottish fishing communities women carried pick -a- back, male fishermen through cold sea water, to the boats moored offshore so the men could do their work in dry enough clothes.

Sounds like a great idea for the Scots. The women can go home and get dry while the men are out in the boats risking their lives.

In some agricultural communities women do most of the heavy work including growing rice while men sit around relaxing. This indeed is one reason women are valuable possessions as they may be used as labour besides having useful wombs.

This is most common where there has been a recent and modern switch from hunting and gathering to an agricultural society, or where modernisation of other kinds have robbed men of their traditional roles.
But do not get me wrong I'm not trying to pretend any of this is going to be fair. Men being stronger will most often mean that roles where strength is at a premium is going to obtain men more power over women as well as power over society in general. Though to take on those roles means playing with a high risk strategy. When the group is invaded those bullies have to do the protection, just like the Scot's fishermen get to keep their feet dry in the short term, but risk drowning whilst piggy-back women are warming their feet by the fire.

The fisher wives mended nets and prepared bait outdoors. Some fishwives near the city carried large creels of fish up hill from shore to city to sell. Other fishwives travelled with the herring fleet up and down the coast gutting and salting herring and their hands got in a terrible state. We had some family photos of them as my parents lived in a fisher town and they appeared to be all young smiling lasses.Maybe when they married and had families they gave up that particular work, they would actually have to give it up.

Do you think that when defence and aggression are at a premium the men will bear the burden of that particular heavy work if only because women are needed to replace the warriors who are killed?

Anyway I think you and I agree means of subsistence + womens' fertility is the root cause of misogyny.

When I did my archaeology degree I spent lots of time looking at anthropology. What I learned was that generalisations are almost impossible. I saw societies where the hunting gathering and child-care were pretty much shared across the genders; places that were matrilineal, matrilocal, as well as others that were the opposite; examples of bride price and dowry (which would have to be returned to the original family when things went wrong); arranged marriage, free marriage; egalitarian, and shockingly patriarchal. Examples where women were revered others where they were chattel. And some surprises where unexpected attitudes reigned that were the opposite of expectations.
Most of these are "cold" societies which change very little in 100s of years.

In our own world you need look no further than the "Good Book" for validation of you misogynistic pov, and given the volatile nature of our "hot" society, one off hand phrase in the wrong mouth such as "You can Touch them by the *****" can double misogyny overnight.

[Sculptor1]

NB.
The "****" censored word removed by the algorithm is P U S S Y. as spoken by president T***P

[Belindi]

All the above generally is true. However let's not be too certain. In Scottish fishing communities women carried pick -a- back, male fishermen through cold sea water, to the boats moored offshore so the men could do their work in dry enough clothes.

Sounds like a great idea for the Scots. The women can go home and get dry while the men are out in the boats risking their lives.

In some agricultural communities women do most of the heavy work including growing rice while men sit around relaxing. This indeed is one reason women are valuable possessions as they may be used as labour besides having useful wombs.

This is most common where there has been a recent and modern switch from hunting and gathering to an agricultural society, or where modernisation of other kinds have robbed men of their traditional roles.
But do not get me wrong I'm not trying to pretend any of this is going to be fair. Men being stronger will most often mean that roles where strength is at a premium is going to obtain men more power over women as well as power over society in general. Though to take on those roles means playing with a high risk strategy. When the group is invaded those bullies have to do the protection, just like the Scot's fishermen get to keep their feet dry in the short term, but risk drowning whilst piggy-back women are warming their feet by the fire.

The fisher wives mended nets and prepared bait outdoors. Some fishwives near the city carried large creels of fish up hill from shore to city to sell. Other fishwives travelled with the herring fleet up and down the coast gutting and salting herring and their hands got in a terrible state. We had some family photos of them as my parents lived in a fisher town and they appeared to be all young smiling lasses.Maybe when they married and had families they gave up that particular work, they would actually have to give it up.

Do you think that when defence and aggression are at a premium the men will bear the burden of that particular heavy work if only because women are needed to replace the warriors who are killed?

Anyway I think you and I agree means of subsistence + womens' fertility is the root cause of misogyny.

When I did my archaeology degree I spent lots of time looking at anthropology. What I learned was that generalisations are almost impossible. I saw societies where the hunting gathering and child-care were pretty much shared across the genders; places that were matrilineal, matrilocal, as well as others that were the opposite; examples of bride price and dowry (which would have to be returned to the original family when things went wrong); arranged marriage, free marriage; egalitarian, and shockingly patriarchal. Examples where women were revered others where they were chattel. And some surprises where unexpected attitudes reigned that were the opposite of expectations.
Most of these are "cold" societies which change very little in 100s of years.

In our own world you need look no further than the "Good Book" for validation of you misogynistic pov, and given the volatile nature of our "hot" society, one off hand phrase in the wrong mouth such as "You can Touch them by the *****" can double misogyny overnight.

Since human behaviour is so various maybe it's unscientific to look for a 'root cause' of any human behaviour. Wild animals change through the genetic channel, slowly, via natural selection. Humans change through ideas and technology i.e. culture, as your examples bear out.

[Sculptor1]

Sounds like a great idea for the Scots. The women can go home and get dry while the men are out in the boats risking their lives.

This is most common where there has been a recent and modern switch from hunting and gathering to an agricultural society, or where modernisation of other kinds have robbed men of their traditional roles.
But do not get me wrong I'm not trying to pretend any of this is going to be fair. Men being stronger will most often mean that roles where strength is at a premium is going to obtain men more power over women as well as power over society in general. Though to take on those roles means playing with a high risk strategy. When the group is invaded those bullies have to do the protection, just like the Scot's fishermen get to keep their feet dry in the short term, but risk drowning whilst piggy-back women are warming their feet by the fire.

The fisher wives mended nets and prepared bait outdoors. Some fishwives near the city carried large creels of fish up hill from shore to city to sell. Other fishwives travelled with the herring fleet up and down the coast gutting and salting herring and their hands got in a terrible state. We had some family photos of them as my parents lived in a fisher town and they appeared to be all young smiling lasses.Maybe when they married and had families they gave up that particular work, they would actually have to give it up.

Do you think that when defence and aggression are at a premium the men will bear the burden of that particular heavy work if only because women are needed to replace the warriors who are killed?

Anyway I think you and I agree means of subsistence + womens' fertility is the root cause of misogyny.

When I did my archaeology degree I spent lots of time looking at anthropology. What I learned was that generalisations are almost impossible. I saw societies where the hunting gathering and child-care were pretty much shared across the genders; places that were matrilineal, matrilocal, as well as others that were the opposite; examples of bride price and dowry (which would have to be returned to the original family when things went wrong); arranged marriage, free marriage; egalitarian, and shockingly patriarchal. Examples where women were revered others where they were chattel. And some surprises where unexpected attitudes reigned that were the opposite of expectations.
Most of these are "cold" societies which change very little in 100s of years.

In our own world you need look no further than the "Good Book" for validation of you misogynistic pov, and given the volatile nature of our "hot" society, one off hand phrase in the wrong mouth such as "You can Touch them by the *****" can double misogyny overnight.

Since human behaviour is so various maybe it's unscientific to look for a 'root cause' of any human behaviour. Wild animals change through the genetic channel, slowly, via natural selection. Humans change through ideas and technology i.e. culture, as your examples bear out.

Yes, we can look at cultural causes for what is essentially a cultural phenomenon. Are there are some immediate causes, we might want to blame.
But causality is always more complex than we can ever image.
Let's say that the rise recent in misogyny can be directly attributable to Trump's comments. We then have to ask what are the multitude of causalities that gave Trump the licence to be able to get away with such a statement in the first place.
It's not so long ago that the norm for a woman was to be barefoot and pregnant serving food whilst the man of the house went out to work. Both men and women complied with this norm. You could then attribute misogyny to the reaction to the women's movement that sought to overturn this norm. On the other hand, the backlash was as string from women as from men.
At the same time young men were being brutalised and maimed by a bloody war in Vietnam, dreaming of the girl back home and dreading the dear John letter.
The causalities are too great to contemplate and are as individual as the misogynists who hold the ideas.

[Belindi]

The fisher wives mended nets and prepared bait outdoors. Some fishwives near the city carried large creels of fish up hill from shore to city to sell. Other fishwives travelled with the herring fleet up and down the coast gutting and salting herring and their hands got in a terrible state. We had some family photos of them as my parents lived in a fisher town and they appeared to be all young smiling lasses.Maybe when they married and had families they gave up that particular work, they would actually have to give it up.

Do you think that when defence and aggression are at a premium the men will bear the burden of that particular heavy work if only because women are needed to replace the warriors who are killed?

Anyway I think you and I agree means of subsistence + womens' fertility is the root cause of misogyny.

When I did my archaeology degree I spent lots of time looking at anthropology. What I learned was that generalisations are almost impossible. I saw societies where the hunting gathering and child-care were pretty much shared across the genders; places that were matrilineal, matrilocal, as well as others that were the opposite; examples of bride price and dowry (which would have to be returned to the original family when things went wrong); arranged marriage, free marriage; egalitarian, and shockingly patriarchal. Examples where women were revered others where they were chattel. And some surprises where unexpected attitudes reigned that were the opposite of expectations.
Most of these are "cold" societies which change very little in 100s of years.

In our own world you need look no further than the "Good Book" for validation of you misogynistic pov, and given the volatile nature of our "hot" society, one off hand phrase in the wrong mouth such as "You can Touch them by the *****" can double misogyny overnight.

Since human behaviour is so various maybe it's unscientific to look for a 'root cause' of any human behaviour. Wild animals change through the genetic channel, slowly, via natural selection. Humans change through ideas and technology i.e. culture, as your examples bear out.

Yes, we can look at cultural causes for what is essentially a cultural phenomenon. Are there are some immediate causes, we might want to blame.
But causality is always more complex than we can ever image.
Let's say that the rise recent in misogyny can be directly attributable to Trump's comments. We then have to ask what are the multitude of causalities that gave Trump the licence to be able to get away with such a statement in the first place.
It's not so long ago that the norm for a woman was to be barefoot and pregnant serving food whilst the man of the house went out to work. Both men and women complied with this norm. You could then attribute misogyny to the reaction to the women's movement that sought to overturn this norm. On the other hand, the backlash was as string from women as from men.
At the same time young men were being brutalised and maimed by a bloody war in Vietnam, dreaming of the girl back home and dreading the dear John letter.
The causalities are too great to contemplate and are as individual as the misogynists who hold the ideas.

You have more than shaken my belief in cultural determinism.

No. I used the wrong term. Should have have said environmental determinism.

Cultural determinism is the belief that the culture in which we are raised determines who we are at emotional and behavioral levels.[1] It contrasts with genetic determinism, the theory that biologically inherited traits and the environmental influences that affect those traits dominate who we are.

Yet another way of looking at the concept of cultural determinism is to contrast it with the idea of environmental determinism. The latter is the idea that the physical world- with all its constraints and potentially life-altering elements-is responsible for the make-up of each existing culture. Contrast this with the idea that we (humans) create our own situations through the power of thought, socialization, and all forms of information circulation.

Wikipedia

[Sculptor1]

When I did my archaeology degree I spent lots of time looking at anthropology. What I learned was that generalisations are almost impossible. I saw societies where the hunting gathering and child-care were pretty much shared across the genders; places that were matrilineal, matrilocal, as well as others that were the opposite; examples of bride price and dowry (which would have to be returned to the original family when things went wrong); arranged marriage, free marriage; egalitarian, and shockingly patriarchal. Examples where women were revered others where they were chattel. And some surprises where unexpected attitudes reigned that were the opposite of expectations.
Most of these are "cold" societies which change very little in 100s of years.

In our own world you need look no further than the "Good Book" for validation of you misogynistic pov, and given the volatile nature of our "hot" society, one off hand phrase in the wrong mouth such as "You can Touch them by the *****" can double misogyny overnight.

Since human behaviour is so various maybe it's unscientific to look for a 'root cause' of any human behaviour. Wild animals change through the genetic channel, slowly, via natural selection. Humans change through ideas and technology i.e. culture, as your examples bear out.

Yes, we can look at cultural causes for what is essentially a cultural phenomenon. Are there are some immediate causes, we might want to blame.
But causality is always more complex than we can ever image.
Let's say that the rise recent in misogyny can be directly attributable to Trump's comments. We then have to ask what are the multitude of causalities that gave Trump the licence to be able to get away with such a statement in the first place.
It's not so long ago that the norm for a woman was to be barefoot and pregnant serving food whilst the man of the house went out to work. Both men and women complied with this norm. You could then attribute misogyny to the reaction to the women's movement that sought to overturn this norm. On the other hand, the backlash was as string from women as from men.
At the same time young men were being brutalised and maimed by a bloody war in Vietnam, dreaming of the girl back home and dreading the dear John letter.
The causalities are too great to contemplate and are as individual as the misogynists who hold the ideas.

You have more than shaken my belief in cultural determinism.

No. I used the wrong term. Should have have said environmental determinism.

Cultural determinism is the belief that the culture in which we are raised determines who we are at emotional and behavioral levels.[1] It contrasts with genetic determinism, the theory that biologically inherited traits and the environmental influences that affect those traits dominate who we are.

Yet another way of looking at the concept of cultural determinism is to contrast it with the idea of environmental determinism. The latter is the idea that the physical world- with all its constraints and potentially life-altering elements-is responsible for the make-up of each existing culture. Contrast this with the idea that we (humans) create our own situations through the power of thought, socialization, and all forms of information circulation.

Wikipedia

In a sense our culture is our socially constructed environment. Where we are genetically is a different matter.
The Wiki entry just reinforces a bad way of thinking. It is as if you have to chose between environment or culture to say what is the most important determinant. In effect the force of the environment to determine outcomes is exactly the same force which causes us to be determined by our "cultural" environment; both act hand in hand against and with the innate forces of our genetics.
Clearly were we to be Lizard-men the environment would effect us in different ways and our cultural response would also be different. Both humans and lizard men in their own ways work within the natural environment and the cultural environment they were conceived in to a determinant outcome. Predicting the trajectories of change is another matter. Determinism does not imply predictability, though it enables it to a degree.

I think it is enough to know that the stuff we tell our children, and the stuff we fail to realise we are telling our children will be what is largely responsible for the outcomes of the next generation. And knowing that as agents in this determinism is vitally important to understand so that we can steer the future in ways we think is best.
It is the unknown knows (as Zizeck calls them) that are probably more important than what we consciously know. And so it is very important that we constantly examine the endemic assumptions and prejudices that we hold and try to assess the effect they are going to have in the next generation.
I suppose that is why such things as CRT is so important and the why people are so angry about it.

[Belindi]

Sculptor wrote:

it is enough to know that the stuff we tell our children, and the stuff we fail to realise we are telling our children will be what is largely responsible for the outcomes of the next generation. And knowing that as agents in this determinism is vitally important to understand so that we can steer the future in ways we think is best.

I agree.

Some parents are dictatorial so the message to their kids is 'it's good to be a dictator'. Other parents tell their children less than what they the parents actually do ; this may be examples of e.g. social conscience or alternatively no social conscience. I have examples of each of those in my extended family right now. The two groups of relations are left and right politically as you might imagine.

Besides being examples to our kids of what is what, and what they ought to do and be, parents also tell the kids stories about what is what and what they are and what they ought to be. These may be fairy tales, neighbourhood gossip, public media gossip, regurgitated political propagandas, family memories, or stories from legitimated authorities such as The Bible, or stories told by high status story tellers (bards, some of whom e.g. Solomon, David, are Biblical and others e.g. Winston Churchill are not Biblical).

NB I am not saying that all right-wing people or all dictatorial styles are misogynists! What I am claiming is all people male and female, brown and white, poor and rich, native or foreign, should be subject to the same criminal and distributive justice. (That is the core Xian message , incidentally).