~ archived since 2018 ~

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Theophagist · 2013-12-05T04:41:46+00:00

THIS DISCUSSION HAS BEEN BRIGADED Misogyny is the hatred of women. Telling a sexist joke does not mean you hate all women. Criticizing something you've...

Theophagist

December 5, 2013

18 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Author	Theophagist
Upvotes	18
Comments	71
Date	December 5, 2013 4:41 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1s4znn/you_keep_using_that_word_i_do_not_think_it_means/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/you-keep-using-that-word-i-do-not-think-it-means.1157030 https://theredarchive.com/post/1157030

Comments

[–]lokidemon731 20 points21 points22 points 12 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]Theophagist[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Theophagist[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tusse 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]rykocolor2 points 12 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

I disagree. The English language has developed specific rules surrounding word usage that has enabled English to adopt and add new words all the time, as well as the changing meaning of the word. Many words in the dictionary now have definitions that do not equate to their etymological origins but instead their daily use.

Misogyny is certainly a word that has been in flux in that last century, as at one time I agree that the etymological definition was the one used. However, when the first wave of feminism started they began to change the common application of the word to mean the oppression of women in almost any circumstance.

Misandry as a word, from my understanding, has only been created in the past few decades. Regardless of that, we here often apply it to things that do not equate to a hatred of men but rather the oppression of men.

[–]Alzael 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]rykocolor0 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

That doesn't change the definition of the word. It just means that they coinsistently aren't using it properly. The word has not been "in flux" it meant "hatred of women" when it first appeared in the lat 1600's, it still means "hatred of women" now. That's what the prefix "mis" has always signified in the english language.

Yes, it does. The english language has specific rules allowing for a changing definition of the word based on lay usage. It's the same rule that has allowed 'aint' to actually become a word (because of lay usage)

Edit:

Words like decimate, ironic, and the phrases 'beg the question' and 'could care less' all have differing definitions than when they were formed because of lay usage - their new definitions are now the definitions listed most often in the dictionary. - this is called semantic change and is recognized as legitimate within the english language.

[–]Alzael 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]rykocolor0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sir, stop telling me to broaden my understanding, it's insulting and serves no purpose other than to push your own supposed superiority in the subject matter.

I agree, the dictionary definition has not completely changed. This is why I said the word has been in flux. As you can imagine it takes a very long time for a word to change. I think we could agree, though, that the average lay usage of the word in the west has changed to mean something much closer to 'the oppression of women'. Many dictionaries have actually added the additional definition the word to include things like oppression of, fear of, or hostility towards women.

Yes, technically misogyny is the hatred of women, and technically those who use it in other ways are incorrect. However, semantic change would never occur unless that happen, and as semantic changed is recognized as legitimate, it also means in turn that lay misuse of a word is also legitimate (otherwise semantic change could never happen).

[–]Alzael2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sir, stop telling me to broaden my understanding, it's insulting and serves no purpose other than to push your own supposed superiority in the subject matter.

It's also accurate, since you are clearly wrong. If you take offense at that, it is not my problem. I said broaden your understanding because it is clearly limited. Whine about how insulted you feel rather than doing something about it all you want if it makes you happy. But it doesn't change the fact that you should.

In the interests of fairness though, I'll make you a deal. I promise to be nicer, if you promise to be smarter. Sound fair?

I agree, the dictionary definition has not completely changed.

Hasn't changed at all.

This is why I said the word has been in flux.

No, that is not what you said. Not entirely. You said that word has been in flux and has changed in definition from feminists using it. I then pointed out that you were demonstrably wrong. Now you are trying to backpeddle and claim that you only said it was "in flux". Something which you also seemingly cannot support.

I think we could agree, though, that the average lay usage of the word in the west has changed to mean something much closer to 'the oppression of women'.

No, we couldn't. Because I actually understand things like language. I also understand things like evidence and reasoned arguments. Just as I understand when someone is clearly breathing out of their mouth.

The word has not changed in its usage. The only ones who use it differently are feminists. Just because you want to make a bunch of assertions does not make them true. It means you're making a bunch of assertions.

Many dictionaries have actually added the additional definition the word to include things like oppression of, fear of, or hostility towards women.

Then why didn't you produce them? I'm betting I know the answer to this already.

Yes, technically misogyny is the hatred of women, and technically those who use it in other ways are incorrect.

It's not a matter of a technicality. Saying that something is "technically" correct means that one is nit-picking a small segment of the rules or one small aspect of the thing in question. Pointing out that the word literally does not mean what you say it does is not a technicality.

However, semantic change would never occur unless that happen, and as semantic changed is recognized as legitimate, it also means in turn that lay misuse of a word is also legitimate (otherwise semantic change could never happen).

Which you have not shown is relevant to this situation in any form. You have not demonstrated, or even tried to demonstrate, that the word has changed. All you've done is simply repeatedly say over and over that because one small segment uses it wrong, it's somehow valid. Which is not how it works.

[–]rykocolor0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The problem with you saying that I am wrong and need to broaden my understanding is that you have presented zero reasons for saying why it is incorrect regardless of the validity of semantic change and thus incorrect lay usage.

You did not demonstrably show that I was wrong in saying the word has been in flux from feminists using it. Not that it matters why a word is in flux, only that it is. I personally attribute it to the rise of feminism and a broad social ideology, you may attribute it to something else. No doubt it is mixture of many things. All of this is ipso facto evident because of the obvious change in lay usage of the word. You can say no one else but feminists use the word in this manner all you want, you don't support that at all other than by assertion. You can go read almost anything about gender and when they talk of misogyny it is almost always with a more nuanced understanding of what the word means and implies.

The reason I did not list the new definitions is because /u/Isabelle50 has already listed them here.

I have said technically misogyny is narrowly defined as the hatred of women because that is its etymological definition. However, I have also listed words (and can list many more) where the etymological definition is no longer in use, and instead (through semantic change and 'technically incorrect lay usage') has a different definition. I believe this to be the case with the word misogyny, as well as the word misandry.

Now...tell me what kind of evidence you think is reasonable and I will give it to you. Because it feels like what you want is some specific article in some sort of etymological scientific journal describing how words change, and a list of words that might be changing right now. It feels like you want a giant appeal to authority before you can accept that a lot of people don't use the word with the true etymological definition and that that is acceptable.

[–]Alzael1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The problem with you saying that I am wrong and need to broaden my understanding is that you have presented zero reasons for saying why it is incorrect regardless of the validity of semantic change and thus incorrect lay usage.

Actually yes, I did provide reasons. That you have failed to support your claim with anything but your assertions. That the words definition has not been in flux and means the same as it meant now and then. I pointed out the inconsistencies in your claims and how they've been changing etc.

You did not demonstrably show that I was wrong in saying the word has been in flux from feminists using it.

Again, this is not what you said. You said that the word was in flux and had already changed from feminists using it. It was demonstrably untrue because the word has not changed as illustrated by the dictionary. So yes, it is demonstrably untrue.

Not that it matters why a word is in flux, only that it is.

You have yet to support this claim.

All of this is ipso facto evident because of the obvious change in lay usage of the word.

Haven't supported this either. Feminists have changed the usage, which was never in contention, but that does not mean the lay uasge has changed. Again, you're just asserting this.

You can say no one else but feminists use the word in this manner all you want, you don't support that at all other than by assertion.

I don't have to. You're the one with the positive claim. It is you claiming that the word is commonly used by people and using it to support yourself. I'm simply telling you that you're wrong. The burden of proof rests on you.

You can go read almost anything about gender and when they talk of misogyny it is almost always with a more nuanced understanding of what the word means and implies.

How many of the people who talk about gender and misogyny are feminists? Because to my knowledge it's pretty much all of them. Aside from anti-feminists who respond to the feminists, but they use the proper definition. So, again, we have established that feminists use the word differently. Which was never in contention. We still have not established that non-feminists do.

As for "nuanced understanding", I think what you mean is "made up" but that's a separate subject.

The reason I did not list the new definitions is because /u/Isabelle50 has already listed them here.

Then you should read most of them, and your words, again. Because they don't match up to the claim that you made.

However, I have also listed words (and can list many more) where the etymological definition is no longer in use, and instead (through semantic change and 'technically incorrect lay usage') has a different definition.

Irrelevant. The fact that it happens was to words was never the contention. It's just a red herring that you keep throwing up. The contention is your claim that it applies to this particular word.

Now...tell me what kind of evidence you think is reasonable and I will give it to you.

That's not how it works. Don't ask people what kind of evidence they want, present the evidence that you have and let it be evaluated. It's not my place to do your job for you. If all you can do is constantly assert your position, as you have been so far, then you have no evidence and this is just opinion you're making up. If that's your opinion, that's fine, but don't pretend that it's anything else.

[–]lokidemon731 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ripowal1 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ripowal1 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ripowal1 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The word has a definition, I merely propose we use that definition.

In that case.

Oxford English Dictionary

Misogyny: noun [mass noun] dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women: she felt she was struggling against thinly disguised misogyny

Merriam Webster

Misogyny: a hatred of women

Hatred: 1. A very strong feeling of dislike 2. prejudiced hostility or animosity

Cambridge Dictionary

Misogyny: feelings of hating women, or the belief that men are much better than women

Macquarie Dictionary

Hatred of women

entrenched prejudices against women

Wiktionary

misogyny (usually uncountable, plural misogynies) Hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women

Wikipedia - if you'd prefer to go more informal

Dictionaries define misogyny as 'hatred of women' and as "hatred, dislike or mistrust of women"

Of course that is if we stick exclusively with strict dictionary definitions and ignore the word's actual use in the lexicon and in feminist theory and writings.

[–]Theophagist[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]apathos_destroys 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Theophagist[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]apathos_destroys 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Theophagist[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lokidemon731 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Theophagist[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]lokidemon731 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ripowal1 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Bartab 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CosmicKeys 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]MintyClinch 18 points19 points20 points 12 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

This isn't a personal attack on you, merely my opinion on the matter.

"I don't trust women in power" is a sexist statement geared towards all women. Maybe it's not hatred towards women, but generalizing an entire group of people because of their gender is sexism. Telling a sexist joke is offensive to women (edit-or male/transgender/etc., whichever gender the joke is referring to) because it furthers the idea of gender based discrimination, trivializes it, and signifies that the person telling the joke has less respect for someone based on their gender.

Instead of criticizing something you've seen women do, particularly something considered gender normative for females, why not criticize the social, cultural, or parental pressures that cause someone to act that way. It is a "women" thing because society has made it a "women" thing. Same idea applies to most things in life. Look for the root causes of issues.

Sexism might not relate to hatred in all cases, but sexist people sure sound ignorant. Everything stated in the above thread is of a sexist nature, objectively and more often than not, subjectively.

[–]Arakin2 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]MintyClinch 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tusse 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]MintyClinch 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Theophagist[S] -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]MintyClinch 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Theophagist[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]MintyClinch 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Theophagist[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]MintyClinch -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think sexism is mainly an objective matter and most people understand the idea that sexism is bad, but I would bet most people don't fully realize the ideas or comments that potentially allude to sexism. Critical thinking is necessary to make efficient progress with all issues, and unless the core of the issue is fixed, then the issue persists. How women act is not the issue, the reasons why women have certain, considerably "negative" traits about them is the issue. The exact same applies to all genders.

I don't think this stuff is basically implied for most people, especially if there are any personal issues with the topic, i.e. anger from a past experience which can cloud judgment.

After reading a lot of other threads and responses in mensrights, I've noticed a lot of sexist hate towards women in particular is thrown around on a regular basis. Stuff that isn't advocating for men's rights; instead, stuff that's meant to mock or insult women. I am being unfair to people who are ignorant to what can be considered sexist though.

And I understand that we are talking about misogyny, but the examples you gave were all relatively sexist and sexism is very often linked to conscious or unconscious disregard or hatred of someone based on gender.

When you say "The people who hate us can't figure this out" it's because the things they see and hear are either gravely misunderstood or are seen as sexism/hatred towards women, because a lot of threads and responses that exist in this subreddit sound like excuses for anger or hatred towards women, and not about advocating for men's rights. Hence, misogyny.

I realize that I'm over-arguing your statement on semantics though, so I'm sorry.

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]MintyClinch 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Good stuff.

I guess connotations associated with misogyny are often incorrectly associated with sexism, though I would argue that both concepts fit in similar niches of thinking.

Kind of a tangent but I find it unfortunate that a lot of people I know are easily offended by discussions over physical attributes between sexes, races, people in different regions of the world, etc. and view many objective facts as sexist in nature, even though they are supported by empirical data. This makes it difficult for people to argue a valid point about sexism, racism, cultural differences, etc. without people inferring that it is sexist, racist, or ethnocentric, etc..

Because honestly, the way feminists define things, simple disagreement with them is inherently misogynistic simply because they refuse to acknowledge that anyone could possibly disagree with them for any other reason

Totally true for many* feminists. Same with a lot of people advocating for men's rights. They do it for the wrong reasons. It's important to separate activists into two main categories: those who advocate true fairness and equality, and those who advocate 'fairness' and 'equality' with reasons based on hate, insecurity, anger, and ignorance.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

") because it furthers the idea of gender based discrimination," No jokes don't. Only an idiot would let a joke change their opinions on this subject. " signifies that the person telling the joke has less respect for someone based on their gender."

And no it doesn't. I can poke fun of the black stereotype all day long, its not that I have less respect for someone for being black, but its because irony and stereotypes aren't mutually exclusive in all situations.

"why not criticize the social, cultural, or parental pressures that cause someone to act that way" Look, your environment definitely has an impact in who you are, but you still choose to make the shitty choices you make. You are still to be held responsible for your actions. Snape didnt write his character in the books, so you cant call him an asshole for being an asshole, am I right?

[–]Alzael -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

objectively and more often than not, subjectively

I don't think you're aware of what that means. At least not from the context in which you're using it.

"I don't trust women in power" is a sexist statement geared towards all women.

No, it's geared towards all women in power.

Maybe it's not hatred towards women, but generalizing an entire group of people because of their gender is sexism.

No, it isn't. It's generalizing. Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on gender.

Telling a sexist joke is offensive to women

No, it isn't. Offense is a personal matter. You can't offend a gender or whole group because "women" is not a conscious entity, individual women are. Also offense is not a blanket effect, not every woman will be offended by jokes about women. Some will like them, some won't, some simply won't care. By saying that women won't like them you are generalizing an entire group based on their gender......I thought that was your sexist in your world? Or is it just not sexist when you do it? Because all of these rules are very complicated, I have to say.

because it furthers the idea of gender based discrimination, trivializes it,

Only because you say it does. And I've seen how right you've been so far, so I'm taking this with a grain of salt.

and signifies that the person telling the joke has less respect for someone based on their gender.

No. It signifies that the person was telling a joke.

See, the real problem with the stupidity of ideas like this is that we have this concept in the western world called "free speech". If you haven't heard of it you might want to try it because it's a wonderful concept and it's worked out great for us so far. Anyways, the problem is that your little idea makes free speech effectively impossible. You see since offense is entirely personal and subjective to the observer, if you can't say things because they might offend some morons race, gender, religion etc. then the conversation is controlled by the most sensitive person in the room. All one has to do is shout "I'm offended" and they have an easy out from everything. Anyone who disagrees or presses the point (no matter how legitimate) is now in a position to be socially demonized.

It's a good way to silence dissent, but not so good in a free society of ideas.

A much better idea might be to convince people to be grown ups and not run off screaming and crying just because somebody said something they don't like. Since nobody out in the rest of the world is required to actually care about their feelings.

Instead of criticizing something you've seen women do, particularly something considered gender normative for females, why not criticize the social, cultural, or parental pressures that cause someone to act that way.

Well for one thing, you have no evidence of those causes being the cause. For another, because I don't think women aren't children who can't make their own decision, or take responsibility for them. Which is probably why I'm not a feminist.

It is a "women" thing because society has made it a "women" thing.

Or because women do it.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PeterArching 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Theophagist[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]TheIdesOfLight 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]luxury_banana 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ripowal1 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Theophagist[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rightsbot 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shrodingerstherapist -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bricrayola 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]bricrayola 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bricrayola 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link