There is no such thing as a "misogynist" society

civfanatic

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
3,256
Des Moines, Iowa
#1
A simple syllogism can be used to demonstrate that such a thing as a "misogynist" society has not, and never has, existed. The syllogism goes as follows:

  1. A misogynist is one who hates women. (Definition of misogyny)
  2. All mothers are women.
  3. A misogynist must hate his own mother. (Follows from 1,2)
  4. In every society that has ever existed, most people do not hate their mothers, but love them.
  5. Thus, every society that has ever existed must mostly consist of non-misogynists. (Follows from 3,4)

If you believe in the standard feminist narrative of "misogyny" existing throughout history and dominating the culture of various societies, on what basis would you refute my argument?
 

civfanatic

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
3,256
Des Moines, Iowa
#4
A man can easily love his mother and despised women in general, because his beloved mother is the exception that proves the rule.
Have you never heard of the Whore / Madonna complex?
If a man loves his mother but hates other women, that necessarily means that the object of the man's hatred cannot be womanhood itself, since his own mother falls within the category of women. You cannot proclaim your hatred of X while at the same time proclaiming your love of a subset of X.

I am not interested in the obscene ideas of Freud, as he was a deranged crackpot. His views are not worthy of any consideration.
 
Nov 2018
37
Denmark
#5
If a man loves his mother but hates other women, that necessarily means that the object of the man's hatred cannot be womanhood itself, since his own mother falls within the category of women. You cannot proclaim your hatred of X while at the same time proclaiming your love of a subset of X.
People are not logical creatures, so it is no problem for most people to believe in contradictions.

I am not interested in the obscene ideas of Freud, as he was a deranged crackpot. His views are not worthy of any consideration.
We totally agree on Freud, nor is he my cup of tea. Nevertheless, even a blind hen can find a grain.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2016
392
Munich
#6
  1. A misogynist is one who hates women. (Definition of misogyny)
  2. All mothers are women.
  3. A misogynist must hate his own mother. (Follows from 1,2)
  4. In every society that has ever existed, most people do not hate their mothers, but love them.
  5. Thus, every society that has ever existed must mostly consist of non-misogynists. (Follows from 3,4
1. MIsogyny means not exclusively hate but also contempt of women. The latter was given in most antique societies as the legal situation of women clearly shows.

2. The only statement in the list that is fully correct :)

3. Not fully correct, since (1) even a misogynist feels - at least unconsciously - love for his mother, and (2) mother hatred is part of everybody´s unconscious soul life. Psychoanalyst Melanie Klein has shown that every child has divided feelings for the mother who is unconsciously represented as "good breast" (good mother) and "bad breast" (bad mother). In Klein´s object relationship theory, it is clear that mother hatred (the core of every hatred of women) unconsciously and often consciously belongs to the soul life of almost every man, usually paired with mother love (i.e. a split image of mother). The infant and the toddler do not yet experience the real mother as a single person, but form a double image of the mother from positive and negative experiences, the good and the bad mother. The latter image generates aggression, which is repressed and remains so until other persons offer themselves as objects onto which the aggression can be projected. Under this aspect, hatred of women is projected mother hatred.

4. That´s incorrect, see above my point 3. What matters is how mother hatred is handled and overcome.

5. That´s incorrect, too. As to the legal situation, most antique societies showed a clear contempt of women.

In Greece, for example, it looked like that:

The social position of Greek women corresponded to the exceptionally patriarchal thinking of the Greeks, who in this respect even outdid the Ancient Oriental peoples, especially the relatively gender-egalitarian Egyptians. The typical Greek Amazon legends had no historical basis, but probably served to portray women who were not under male dictatorship as a natural threat to men.

Three social layers are to be distinguished, which are expressed in the following quotation (from the collection of writings "Pseudo-Demosthenes", 59):

We have hetaera for pleasure's sake, concubines for the daily care of our body, but wives for the production of legitimate children and faithful guardians of our household.

The legal position of the wife, not to mention the others, was catastrophic by today's standards. She had no civil rights (no participation in meetings, no right to vote, no offices - except the limited possibility of becoming a priestess -, and no property) and was completely at the mercy of her husband's will and that of her master (Greek kyrios). Except for festive occasions, she was not allowed to go public, had to keep her legs covered to the foot, was less educated than men, and from a male point of view was generally considered to be mentally and morally low. Plato proclaims in Timaius that rebirth as a woman goes back to moral deficiencies of the soul and is to be regarded as punishment, only rebirth as an animal is worse.

In the Roman Empire, women were also considered inferior. The following arguments were put forward:

1) the impermanence of her character (levitas animi), 2) the weakness of her sex (infirmitas sexus) and 3) the powerlessness of her mind (imbecillitas mentis). Since the weakness of her body made her neither good for war nor for governing, her true place could only be in the household.

The ´pater familas´, the male head of the family, had the ´patrias potestas´(= fatherly power). Among them was also the ´vitae necisque potestas´, the power over life and death of family members (wife, children, slaves). In order to prevent spontaneous arbitrary decisions against a family member, the rule applied that the pater familias first consulted with the rest of the family and with his friends.
 
Last edited:

civfanatic

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
3,256
Des Moines, Iowa
#7
1. MIsogyny means not exclusively hate but also contempt of women. The latter was given in most antique societies as the legal situation of women clearly shows.
I do not see the practical distinction between "hatred" and "contempt" in this context. To hate X and to have contempt for X both imply that X is despised. I disagree that the legal status of women in historical civilizations translates to either hatred or contempt of women (or "misogyny" in either case).


3. Not fully correct, since (1) even a misogynist feels - at least unconsciously - love for his mother, and (2) mother hatred is part of everybody´s unconscious soul life. Psychoanalyst Melanie Klein has shown that every child has divided feelings for the mother who is unconsciously represented as "good breast" (good mother) and "bad breast" (bad mother). In Klein´s object relationship theory, it is clear that mother hatred (the core of every hatred of women) unconsciously and often consciously belongs to the soul life of almost every man, usually paired with mother love (i.e. a split image of mother). The infant and the toddler do not yet experience the real mother as a single person, but form a double image of the mother from positive and negative experiences, the good and the bad mother. The latter image generates aggression, which is repressed and remains so until other persons offer themselves as objects onto which the aggression can be projected. Under this aspect, hatred of women is projected mother hatred.
I do not accept psychoanalysis as a valid academic discipline. I would probably be banned from this forum if I were to express my true opinion on psychoanalysts like Melanie Klein, and the motivations and sociohistorical context of their "research," so I will refrain from doing so. Suffice to say, if you want me to accept a proposition such as "most men hate their mother," I demand that you provide strong empirical evidence in favor of this proposition. At the very least, I would like to see anthropological surveys or other such field reports from various cultures that clearly demonstrate such feelings of antipathy towards one's own mother, as such feelings go entirely against reason and nature.

For my part, I can provide some evidence in favor of my position, which I thought should have been obvious. In 1927, the English female anthropologist Winifred Blackman conducted extensive research on the predominantly Muslim peasants (fellaheen) of Egypt, which she published in her book The Fellaheen of Upper Egypt. This is an excerpt from p.45 of her text:



Thus, we see that even in a society like Muslim Egypt, which is regarded as one of the most patriarchal and "misogynist" of societies, there is almost universal love and appreciation for one's mother. There are numerous accounts of men sacrificing their own lives to protect their mothers. On what basis should I believe that these men all bear some deep-seated "hatred" for their mother, which somehow manifests as "misogyny"? Do you hate your own mother?


4. That´s incorrect, see above my point 3. What matters is how mother hatred is handled and overcome.
Provide some concrete empirical or anthropological evidence regarding this so-called "mother hatred."


5. That´s incorrect, too. As to the legal situation, most antique societies showed a clear contempt of women.
............................................
In the Roman Empire, women were also considered inferior. The following arguments were put forward:

1) the impermanence of her character (levitas animi), 2) the weakness of her sex (infirmitas sexus) and 3) the powerlessness of her mind (imbecillitas mentis). Since the weakness of her body made her neither good for war nor for governing, her true place could only be in the household.

The ´pater familas´, the male head of the family, had the ´patrias potestas´(= fatherly power). Among them was also the ´vitae necisque potestas´, the power over life and death of family members (wife, children, slaves). In order to prevent spontaneous arbitrary decisions against a family member, the rule applied that the pater familias first consulted with the rest of the family and his friends
It is an objective fact that women are the weaker sex, and are not fit for politics in the same way that men are. This was the universal view among all great civilizations throughout history, whether it be the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Hindus, or Muslims. However, why does it follow that if men and women do not have the same rights and obligations, the women must be viewed with hatred or contempt? As an analogy, I do not believe that children should be involved in politics (just as I believe that women, as a general rule, should not be involved with it), but that does not imply that I hate or have contempt for children. It seems to me that the charge of "misogyny" is borne out of a peculiar liberal weltanshauung, where any fundamental inequality must perforce be a token of oppression and contempt.
 
Nov 2018
37
Denmark
#8
In later years, a woman especially if she has sons has an honorable position in the family.
In later years? When they have stopped menstruating? Many societies reckon women after menopause almost like men. And what if she only gave birth to daughters?

My wife is good and I am pleased with her, but she must remain there (pointing downwards)

My mother is up there (pointing upwards)
I almost dare not whisper it. Whore / Madonna?
 
Dec 2011
1,814
#9
A simple syllogism can be used to demonstrate that such a thing as a "misogynist" society has not, and never has, existed. The syllogism goes as follows:

  1. P1 A misogynist is one who hates women. (Definition of misogyny) P1
  2. P2 All mothers are women. P2
  3. C1 A misogynist must hate his own mother. (Follows from 1,2) C1
  4. P3 In every society that has ever existed, most people do not hate their mothers, but love them. P3
  5. C2 Thus, every society that has ever existed must mostly consist of non-misogynists. (Follows from 3,4) C2

If you believe in the P4 standard feminist narrative of "misogyny" existing throughout history P4 and P5 dominating the culture of various societies P5 , on what basis would you refute my argument?
Your argument is valid.

Valid Table:
P1 + P3 / C2

Indeterminate* table:
P1 + P2/ C2

*Inderterminate = neither valid or invalid

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can see that a 2 valid syllogisms have been mixed in our given example.

P1 + P2 / C1 is a valid syllogism.

P2 + P3 / C2 is a valid syllogism with most defined as > 50%
 
Last edited:
Dec 2011
1,814
#10
If a man loves his mother but hates other women, that necessarily means that the object of the man's hatred cannot be womanhood itself, since his own mother falls within the category of women. You cannot proclaim your hatred of X while at the same time proclaiming your love of a subset of X.

I am not interested in the obscene ideas of Freud, as he was a deranged crackpot. His views are not worthy of any consideration.
If you are going to introduce additional elements to your argument you will have to redo the syllogism and peripheral features. However, since your point here syncs with P3 we can say that nothing in your argument has changed.

Therefore, your argument is still valid.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions