There is no such thing as a "misogynist" society

Dec 2011
1,814
#22
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.
Yet, how does patriarchal equate to misogyny ?

IOW, a patriarchal society does not necessarily imply misogyny.

A patriarchal society, given the necessity of children for a number of reasons, couldn't we infer objectively that women had an important function to fulfill ?
 
Dec 2011
1,814
#23
But P1 is a definition.

The problem is that a "misogynist" society is nowhere defined. In normal use it does require that "most" men or any men be misogynists themselves.
It is also a premise. The OP is using a particular definition as a premise. We could call a premise a proposition.

No. The OP defines it for the syllogism. What matters is whether or not the premise conflicts with any other premises. If the premises conflict with the conclusion then the "argument" is invalid.

However, pointing out that the premise could be wrong is one way to "refute" the argument, but, it does not invalidate the conclusion of the syllogism.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2011
1,814
#24
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.
Children did not have legal status or social position in these societies as well. That does not mean that we can make the proposition that:

"As to the legal situation, most antique societies showed a clear contempt of children."​

 
Dec 2011
1,814
#25
The problem is that a "misogynist" society is nowhere defined. In normal use it does not require that "most" men or any men be misogynists themselves.
I think you could use any of the available definitions of misogynist to be found and that would not change the conclusion.

If you change P1, we could just change C1 and modify P3 to fit the change.

P2 + P4 / C2 would still be valid.

To refute the argument, we are going to need historical evidence to counter any form of the definition of misogyny found in P1 and concluded in C2.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
12,741
Europix
#27
... to refute the argument, we are going to need historical evidence to counter any form of the definition of misogyny found in P1 and concluded in C2.
I don't think we need anything else than the initial syllogism itself:

2. All mothers are women.
it's missing: "All women are not mothers". As I see it, that is breaking the logic chain to:

3. A misogynist must hate his own mother. (Follows from 1,2)
Plus, the "rupture" point between 1-3 and 4-5: 1 and 3 have an individual subject ("A misogynist ") while 4 and 5 have a colective subject ("society").

Nothing in the OP syllogism permits to say that "society" is the simple arithmetical sum of "individuals".
 
Last edited:
Sep 2017
105
Pennsylvania
#28
It is an incomplete definition. The premise P1 would be incomplete. That would still not invalidate this particular syllogism.

The OP's conclusion may be wrong, but his argument, in the form of the syllogism, is still correct.
Yes and?

False premise = False Premise
 
Sep 2017
105
Pennsylvania
#29
It is an incomplete definition. The premise P1 would be incomplete. That would still not invalidate this particular syllogism.

The OP's conclusion may be wrong, but his argument, in the form of the syllogism, is still correct.
False Premise = False Premise

Furthermore, OP's syllogism, as stated:

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...
I have quoted the syllogism. A premise supports a syllogism, the entirety of this thread proceeds from a false conflation of premise with syllogism. OP's premises, as stated are supposed to be:

"proving that a simple syllogism can be used to demonstrate..."

Not only do P1 through P4 fail to support P0, which is in fact:

"...such a thing as a misogynist society has not, and never has, existed"

They fail to support the argument that:

"A simple syllogism can be used to demonstrate..."

OP does, however, put forth an excellent example of rhetoric in that everyone looked right at the pink elephant while the white rabbit emptied their metaphorical bank accounts...
 

Similar History Discussions