Why is misogyny wrong?

[Heretic_Cata]

Because she's your mother and gave you birth.

Here's another thing that mothers should be allowed to do with their children. I mean she did give birth to him and all.

 

[Bill3000]

nevermind

 

[bhsup]

My mother is (was?*) an abusive, unloving, sexually promiscuous, continuously lying, cheating, self-centered... person, who always loved bragging about my achievements with which she had nothing to do, and who destroyed the better part of my father's life, him being the only person that has supported me throughout my entire life, and to whom I owe most of my education and well-being. Why exactly should I love her?

____________
* she's still alive and well, but not like this any more (because well.. she doesn't have the power anymore)

Here's another thing that mothers should be allowed to do with their children. I mean she did give birth to him and all.

Hey guys, maybe you missed this. Look at the bolded part...

Barring the disturbed, whacked parents which make up a very, very small percentage of the population, it's not wrong. if you don't love you're parents, you're ed in the head. End of story.

Now maybe CFC has for some reason a higher percentage of kids with whacked parents. Or maybe CFC just has a higher percentage of whiners. I don't know. But if you think you fall in that "barring the disturbed, whacked parents" segment, then obviously this doesn't apply to you, so that means THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO YOU.

 

[Akka]

Outside of the immorality of misogyny itself, misogynists are either worthless spiteful bastards of men who are bitter that they get divorced because they can't keep it in their pants, or pratty loser socially awkward teenagers who are bitter that no girl likes them.

Or some people who had bad dealings with women before ?
I mean, if a woman was hating men because she had problems with men, would you describe her as negatively ?

Now maybe CFC has for some reason a higher percentage of kids with whacked parents. Or maybe CFC just has a higher percentage of whiners. I don't know. But if you think you fall in that "barring the disturbed, whacked parents" segment, then obviously this doesn't apply to you, so that means THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO YOU.

Well, let's be logical here. There is PLENTY of a-holes in the world. Most of them have children. There is quite a lot of children who have reasons to dislike their parents. You're underevaluating the amount of cases here, you do not need completely insane parents to dislike them, they can "simply" be total jerks, which is a minority, but not a tiny one.

 

[laffy]

Hating all people can be written off as classical emo-ness, general grumpiness, philosophical disappointment in humanity, or some such.

Why can't misogyny be written off as a similar philosophical, sexual or emotional disappointment in women? Please note that in no way am I advocating physical abuse of women.

As for emo-ness and grumpiness, are you implying that hatred should only be socially acceptable if the person seems pathetic doing it? Hatred, anger and frustration are very human emotions and I preemptively reject the notion that they should be ignored in favor of happier, more socially acceptable ones.

And by the way I categorically disagree with the statement I've bolded above. Hating the correct subset (the set of individuals who have actually pissed me off in one way or another) is rational, hating a subset of people most of whom you have never heard of or laid eyes on is irrational on any level, to say nothing of self-defeating and a waste of energies.

If I experience a similar disappointment with a sizable number of women, then there is nothing wrong with tentatively suggesting that the same traits probably recur with some frequency in a good deal of them. It's definitely a simpler claim than the suggestion that there is something wrong with all humanity.

I never said anything about generalizing willy-nilly. Categorically lumping all females into the same category is bad practice, so these aren't strict categories. I'm not ruling out the possibility of wonderful, fantastic females out there. Categorically assigning negative traits a priori to all females is wrong because it is prejudicial. I agree with other posters on those points, and I think I've been misunderstood.

 

[Ecofarm]

Aren't racists the same thing as misanthropes too?

No.

Why?

Because targeting a group instead of the whole is called bigotry.

 

[Earthling]

I thought it was called synecdoche.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

No, that's naming.

I think the preceding post was missing enough facts and using enough weasel words to be a Wikipedia Featured Article.

 

[Dachs]

I calls em like I sees em.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Which featured articles?

 

[.Shane.]

The way you pose the question is ridiculous. Clearly misogyny (and is lesser known sibling misandry) is wrong.

The question that I hope you are asking is why do people take a "lighter" view of misanthropes.

 

[Ecofarm]

The question that I hope you are asking is why do people take a "lighter" view of misanthropes.

Because deep down in our hearts, we know that people are crap and our only hope of redemption or salvation lies in the inspiration provided by others, as we overlook flaws and perpetuate idolism. And that's pretty bleak.

/emo/misanthrope


So, what's the difference between an emo and a misanthrope? Brains? Training to be an intellectual? Age? Just wondering.

 

[Bill3000]

Or some people who had bad dealings with women before ?

That is precisely what I was talking about.

 

[Lord Gay]

Spoiler :

 

[warpus]

Why can't misogyny be written off as a similar philosophical, sexual or emotional disappointment in women? Please note that in no way am I advocating physical abuse of women.

Because it doesn't make sense to write off ALL women just because of several disappointing experiences.

I mean, say I'm disappointed with all the Greek people I've met so far. How does it make sense to extend this disappointment onto the remaining members of Greek society who I have never even met?

It's bigoted.

 

[Lord Gay]

Somebody posted this link in another thread here, I forget who. Given that Cannolli keeps ending his posts with 'you're a racist', I'm tempted to start ending my posts with this. It seems humorously appropriate to several threads of late, including this one.

http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/

(FYI, I don't agree with it at all.)

 

[Earthling]

That link should have been removed before then for language like the f-bomb, and we had a (non-OT though) mod already say that it shouldn't be acceptable to put things like "you're a racist" in random posts. Not exactly my place to get involved further but from my point of view I'd just feel better with everyone publicly clear on this, wherever the final line drawn in the sand will be.

 

[Fifty]

That link should have been removed before then for language like the f-bomb, and we had a (non-OT though) mod already say that it shouldn't be acceptable to put things like "you're a racist" in random posts. Not exactly my place to get involved further but from my point of view I'd just feel better with everyone publicly clear on this, wherever the final line drawn in the sand will be.

shut the up you rasist.

 

[holy king]

That link should have been removed before then for language like the f-bomb, and we had a (non-OT though) mod already say that it shouldn't be acceptable to put things like "you're a racist" in random posts. Not exactly my place to get involved further but from my point of view I'd just feel better with everyone publicly clear on this, wherever the final line drawn in the sand will be.

you hope they make you deputy?

 

[Lord Gay]

I have no problem removing the link. It's just sooooo sexist that I find it funny, but I certainly don't wish to offend anyone. I can't help but wonder if the guy hosting that site is a virgin. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

FWIW, the mod indicated that s/he was opposed to ending posts with 'bestiality', not 'racist', and made no comment on Connolli's posts.