This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Would the Epistles mention please specify the section(s) - like "Rom 16:1" ? Markbassett ( talk) 03:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The claims that certain quotes are misogynistic in this article must be backed up by appropriate apolitical sources or they will be deleted. Jgda 00:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Moving deleted content here:
I still do not understand the justification for deleting this content, instead of tagging it. I googled "John Knox misogyny" and I found Knox's misogyny is legendary. and there is more to Knox's literary legacy than misogynist polemic. and for a misogynist as Knox and Knox's theories about women rulers reveal him as a misogynist and a prude just from the first page of results. Same for Nietzsche and Weininger. And these aren't just blog hits, they all got hits from JSTOR and universities. How is this content unsourced? Each section specifically says where the quotes come from, and what books are in question. Seems sourced to me.-- Andrew c 01:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is Katherine M. Rogers quoted at length? In the first instance, the quote is inelegant and better paraphrased; in the second instance, Rogers foretells a war between the sexes and makes dubious, overblown conclusions about man's response to women's rights — it's untempered vitriol, not suitable for an encyclopedia. If she must be included, she should be paraphrased or quoted at smaller length, lest the article implicitly endorse her views (contra NPOV). Rintrah 14:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
While a "seducer" like Casanova or Don Juan might appear outwardly charming and to enjoy the company of women, some may interpret these figures as being disrespectful of women, or as having no interest in them other than as sex objects and/or as trophies to collect as would a hunter.
I refer you to WP:WEASEL. Rintrah 00:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be a good idea to add a link to a website that discusses how to end feelings of misogyny? I've done a search for the last 45 minutes/hour and all I've found are self-pitying rants against men, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheRedVest ( talk • contribs) 02:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
Someone has disputed the following section, so I have moved it to talk to clear up issues, or decide whether it is notable enough, encyclopedic enough, and formatted to go live:
And here is someone's comments that they added to the main article space:
- Andrew c 23:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Shoopshoop 02:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly how useful is it, even if tenuous citations are found, to level accusations of misogyny at fictional characters? It's problematic enough doing so with authors but heck, isn't the standard way of going about this to use the fictional character as symptomatic of cultural norms during textual production (with of course no consideration for irony, thematic depth or social relativism)? Jgda 23:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Added some info and split Philosphy & Religion in two as an attempt to make this article a bit more solid, actually citing references from Jack Holland's book and the Bible. It is merely a starting point so please bear with me - edit it, put it in a more organized manner - this article is begging for some massive reviewing. Betina 22:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
This page is full of OR. Take this passage: "Other forms of misogyny may be more subtle. Some misogynists may simply be prejudiced against all women, or may hate women who do not fall into one or more acceptable categories. Entire cultures may be said to be misogynist if they treat women in ways that can be seen as harmful. Examples include forcing women to tend to all domestic responsibilities, demanding silence from a woman, or beating a woman. Subscribers to one model, the mother/whore dichotomy, hold that women can only be "mothers" or "whores." Another variant is the virgin/whore dichotomy, in which women who do not adhere to a saintly standard of moral purity are considered "whores."" Where are the citations for this? 69.86.156.243 14:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It could be mentioned that misogyny comes from a greek word that "miso-" means in greek "hate" and "-gyny", "woman"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.88.124 ( talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
So...the Greeks hated women? 144.92.84.206 ( talk) 17:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, entries like this one are really tricky. I haven't read the rape entry, but some crimes against women are, and always have been crimes throughout history and across cultures. However, I don't think it was until recently that misogyny was used as a technical term to describe a theory of some kind of institutionalised hatred of women.
Misanthropy is not criminality. Anti-social eccentricity, reclusiveness, cynicism — Scrooge yes, Jack the Ripper no. To my understanding, misogyny used to describe some confirmed bachelors, the "hatred" was hyperbolic, merely a simplistic use of a Greek prefix. Arachnaphobia is common, sometimes extreme (like with me, but I'm Australian and spiders here are deadly); but phobia in this word is hyperbolic, "fear" only in a broad way.
The standard Greek lexicon, Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, revised and augmented by Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940, ISBN 0198642261) does have an entry for he misogunia (ἡ μισογῦνια). However, it only cites two attested uses in extant Greek manuscripts — On marriage by Antipater of Tarsus (c. 150 BC), a stoic, who argued marriage is the foundation of the state, based on divine decree. The editio princeps is, of course, Hans Friedrich August von Arnim's Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta ( SVF, Old Stoic Fragments, 1903). The word can be found in context there in volume 3, page 255. More conveniently, Will Deming provides a critical text and translation in Appendix A to Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7. Misogunia appears in the accusative case on page 224 as the fifth word in line 33 of Deming's Greek text. (It is split over lines 25–26 in von Arnim.)
Antipater uses misogunia to describe Euripides' usual writing — tēn en to graphein misogunian. His point seems to be that even a misogynist like Euripides cannot help but praise wives, and goes on to quote him doing just this. It is quite a warm, fuzzy bit of writing.
The second use of the word is by Chrysippus in a fragment from On affections quoted by Galen in Hippocrates on Affections. This is also in SVF volume three, the first word on page 103, the first word of a list of three "disaffections" — women, wine and humanity (misogunian, misoinian, misanthrōpian). Sounds like a general " party-pooper" to me! Chrysippus seems to be saying such things are symptoms of underlying cognitive distemper. Galen does not agree with Chrysippus. There is considerable secondary literature regarding the philosophical debate.
What a great way to start the article, but I can imagine it lasting all of 24 hours before it is removed. Perhaps we will be reminded that Wiki is not a dictionary to include such etymological digressions, perhaps some kind of bad faith will be assumed, and it will be challenged as OR or POV, perhaps no such Wiki lawyering will be offered, it will simply disappear without discussion.
I may do some work on this article, but I'm tired of cited material being removed after hours tracing sources. I simply don't have time or inclination to monitor changes. I'm afraid I find documenting sources for "sensitive" entries at Wiki often ends up being like writing letters with a finger in thin air. Doesn't stop me contributing, but it does mean I leave the censors to their own conscience, and let them "own" "their" entries.
Anyway, I had a lot of fun discovering, contrary to my expectations, that misogyny is indeed a loanword from Koine Greek, rather than a modern technical term. ;) Alastair Haines ( talk) 10:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm amazed that there's nothing on Islam, Hinduism or the various other religions. There's a lot of information out there. For example, male guardianship and lack of womens rights in Islam [5], the practice of Sati to name two. 59.92.34.59 ( talk) 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if my edits were reverted on accident due to an edit conflict, or if there were reasons for the restoration of some links and removal of others. So I felt, instead of risk any chance of edit warring, come here to figure out what links should go in the "see also" section. I feel like the links that are already present in the lead should not be repeated in the see "also section". I agree with removing a number of links and keeping the section to a minimum, but I feel JCDenton2052 removed a few too many. Anyway, what do others think?- Andrew c [talk] 01:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I care more about See also than I thought. Alastair Haines ( talk) 03:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The following section refers to a documented event, and accurately reports key features and the overall intention. I located the primary source from the Vatican website. There is additional, related material there also. However, in none of the primary material could I find reference to women as claimed in the Wiki text. When I can't find things, I never assume they do not exist. But, ultimately, if there is no actual evidence for something, we can't assert that thing at Wiki. A thing that might exist but has not been observed can indeed be notable -- extraterrestrial intelligence, for example. Things that do not or have not existed can also be notable -- unicorn, for example. Please, someone, find a reliable source documenting the following.
“ | During the Great Jubilee, Pope John Paul II issued an apology for all the past sins of the Roman Catholic Church, dividing the sins into seven categories. Among general sins, sins in service of the truth, sins against Christian unity, sins against Jews, sins against respect of love, peace and culture, and sins against human rights, he also apologized for sins against the dignity of women and minorities. | ” |
We probably also need to discuss if this actually refers to misogyny. In the mind of the editor who supplied this text, "sins against the dignity of women" are prompted by misogyny and therefore relevant. I can see that point, but I'm not so sure. I would think an internet phisher stealing credit card info from a woman is sinning against her dignity, but would assume he robs men as well. We need published theological comment on such a claim, at the least, and probably ethical comment on what consistitutes dignity.
To my understanding violence is often a crime against human dignity. Is it a crime to arrest someone who resists, however. At what point do we have "undue force" and violence. May women resist arrest for smuggling drugs, since using force against them would be violence against women. Would the female police officer attempting this be driven by misogyny?
I think I'm getting an idea of the shape a mature version of this entry must take.
The more clear it is what we are not talking about, and what is theory and opinion, versus what has been recorded and documented, the more statisfied readers will be. Published theories must be included of course, and hopefully along with criticism.
Ah! Such a long way to go. Cheers all. Alastair Haines ( talk) 03:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
While I don't doubt the editor who provided a summary of Holland's views has done so accurately. If the summary is accurate, Holland is simply wrong about Eve in Gensis. Famously, Da Vinci portrays Eve under God's arm in The creation of man. Da Vinci simply reflected the history of interpretation of Genesis. In my reading, while suggestions of Eve being an after thought do exist in publication, these are not taken seriously by Bible scholars of any tradition, including the many self-confessed atheists among them. The view is not even typical of so-called feminist theologians.
The reason I raise this is that, where scholars make errors, it seems good form and practical to overlook this in article text. Unless their errors are really pertinent to debate, it only adds digression to articles. If Holland uses the word misogyny to describe ideology underlying both Eve and Pandora narratives (and I presume he does), he belongs in the article. If he doesn't, he doesn't (sorry for that sentence).
Additionally, at some point we will need to clarify yet another concept. Is the Second Sex concept isomorphic with the mysogyny concept? Personally, I can't see how that can possibly be rationally maintained. Our children are second, therefore we hate them? Do we really expect to find peer-reviewed scholars getting away with sloppy thinking without there being published criticism? Let's not allow the article to fall into tangential debates regarding logical trivialities.
On the other hand, to suggest that the two ideas might be related, however, seems unquestionably obvious. Racism is an example. Native American "pale face" may well have had derogatory implications. I've been told Indonesian slang bule implies sickness and weakness, which is what pale skin suggests in that culture. To ancient cultures, outsiders were barbarians -- second class non citizens.
Is viewing others as weaker always followed by hatred and violence? How do soldiers treat their wounded comrades? What do we do when friends are sick or vulnerable?
Men can view women in much more than one anti-social (and factually wrong) way. Some of these may be classified as misogyny, for others such a classification will probably not appear in serious academic treatments. Over protective fathers withholding car keys until the mini-skirt is exchanged for jeans may be underestimating and devaluing their daughter's ability to manage social situations, however it seems somewhat problematic to call this hatred.
I bet I can find sources that will suggest some silly things like this, but I'd be wasting everyone's time writing them into the article, because they'll be redundant as soon as quality sources are found.
I guess I'm working out what I'm looking for sources to teach me. How is hatred in gender relations observed and defined? What sort of studies have been proposed and conducted regarding it? Are there general characteristics of hatred that can be applied in analogous ways in cases of race, age, gender, disability etc.? Are there also differences between these things, which mean hatred of men or hatred of women are unique and special problems?
I guess I'm also interested that the Greeks listed mysogyny as a disease, but the exhaustive modern western catalogues of psychological diseases do not mention it? Is mysogyny more of an informal description of, no doubt accurate, perceptions of typical male frustrations with women? Are there symptoms to show this can actually be or become pathological in some men? Are the genders truly equal? Do women show exactly the same things? Do we actually have any answers for these questions? Are they currently being researched? How?
When I stop to think about it, I don't know the answers. Not only that, I can't know the answers. Many of them need a lot of evidence to be examined closely, and I just don't have access to the evidence, nor the tools to analyse it. But I expect others do ...
I guess we have a lot of reading to do. Alastair Haines ( talk) 04:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Katherine M Rogers book is cited in a review by Jean R. Brink of Philip J Gallagher and others, Milton, the Bible, and Misogyny. In Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature 45 (1991): 94-95.
Her book is reviewed in Milton Quarterly 1 (1967): 9-10.
She also wrote Katherine M. Rogers, Feminism in Eighteenth-Century England, Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1982.
Katherine M. Rogers, "Dreams and Nightmares: Male Characters in the Feminine Novel of the Eighteenth Century", in Men by Women, ed. Janet...
I am doing some more research. The language in which she expresses her personal opinion is strong even for theological writers who call themselves feminists (that sentence would sound awful if I put it the other way around ;) ).
As such, this is probably yet another example of WP:UNDUE, where fringe writers with much education, much good to say, and the support of an editor and maybe a review committee, nonetheless say things way out of line with orthodoxy in their field. Personally, I think it is a matter of great importance that such writers are published, especially in the humanities. Censorship ultimately silences one's own heart and conscience. However, an encyclopedia is not the place for them to be cited as the "final word".
Given that Wikipedia will be visited by millions of people who hear or read Paul at least once a month (namely church-going Christians) claims of misogyny in Paul are vulnerable to massive documentation of verifiable counter-claims. I think this article should not become dominated by that debate. Claims of misogyny in the Bible will always be WP:UNDUE. They are discussed (I believe) in articles on Paul and his writings (and, imo, they ought to be).
There is genuine factual material in the Rogers quote. Yes, extra-marital sex is prohibited in the New Testament (including homosexual sex of any kind) -- 1 Corinthians 7 and others. Yes, men are forbidden to appoint women to positions of responsibility which include responsibility for men -- 1 Timothy 2 and others. However, she describes Paul in a way he would not describe himself, and in a way that the history of interpretation and the consensus of current interpretation would not use. Her descriptions are characteristic of her personal assessment of the (lack of) value in these ideas of Paul.
Personally, I cite writers like Rogers often, because they correctly understand what Paul teaches in these passages, while rejecting it out of hand. The reason I do that is because there are many people who claim to accept the Bible is always accurate, but, like Rogers, dislike Paul's teachings on sex and gender. In the writing of people like this, they seek to reinterpret Paul so that he is not saying these things. A famous and extreme example is John Spong. One of his ingenious readings of the New Testament sees Jesus marrying John, the gospel writer.
If we are looking for a neutral commentary on what Paul says, Rogers is not it. She doesn't claim to be. It is our fault, not hers if we cite her in such a way.
At this stage, the article is so small, Rogers may as well stay, but there is a huge difference between misogyny in Greek poets and various philosophers, and the alleged misogyny of the Bible. We should also note the philosophy section respects the discipline enough to give examples of non mysogynistic philosophers (at least, in the editor's opinion). Of course, no serious Bible scholar is going to list biblical writings that are or are not misogynistic.
If anyone seriously wants to research mysogyny in the Bible, gather sources and start an article, 'cause I'll be happy to provide any amount of counter sources to ensure neutrality. In the mean time though, there are more fruitful ways of building this article. Alastair Haines ( talk) 06:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to get my hands on books like this one
Perhaps it's been scanned and is available on the internet. It strikes me as a very Wiki / encyclopedic approach to this topic. Human beings disagree from time to time. That two brothers disagree about who will take out the garbage does not mean they hate each other. It's amazing how many bad sources there are, that conclude generalities from specifics on this subject. I'd quote some in this article, but people would accuse me of trying to humiliate their case. ;) Anyway, I'm sure we'll get things worked out here eventually. Alastair Haines ( talk) 07:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This text was removed as POV. I think I agree, but it claims to be sourced, so I'm restoring it here for discussion. One aspect of NPOV is striving to articulate all significant POVs. The trick is presenting those POVs neutrally. Is that achieved here? Why or why not? If it is unacceptable POV, what is the POV that is being expressed?
In Islam, it is regarded as the literal word of Allah that "Men are superior to women" ( Quran 34:4). There is no agreement on what the punishment is for a woman that does not accept the superiority of men in Islam, although imprisonment and beatings are sanctified by Allah ( Quran 4:34). In extreme cases, a Muslim family might commit an Honor Killing. Sometimes, a junior member of the family, or even the son or brother of the disobedient woman, is forced to commit the act, because western law systems dictate very limited punishment for juvenile offenders. It is not clear under what circumstances an honor killing is permitted in Islam, however the Islamic prophet did indeed commit honor killings, one woman was killed for merely disagreeing with him: Asma_Bint_Marwan.
Qur'an 34:4 according to Pickthall at www.Islam.tc has,
But Qur'an 4:34 has,
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
So I think the first Qur'an reference is a typo.
It would also appear that the proposed Wiki text about is indeed a biased reading of the Qur'an, because Pickthall translates the first sentence as a statement backed by two reasons marked by because.
I also suspect "imprisonment and beatings" is again only half true, since there is a more obvious interpretation of "beds apart" in English at least.
However, I think my comments are quibbles. It does sound like a feminist argument that Islam is misogynistic, which is precisely one POV the article needs. I think all we need is a feminist source that makes the points. I don't think that will be hard to find.
The trick here is how to be neutral, since Sura 4 of the Qur'an is all about how to look after women, as I'm sure Islamic sources will note. What do we do when sources clash? The Islamic view of looking after women is quite different to the feminist view. But also, there is Muslim culture that goes beyond the Qur'an, and feminist views that go beyond accepted definitions and call anything they don't like misogyny.
I'm thinking aloud atm, but I suspect Wiki should not get drawn into discussing actions by people of Muslim background not based on reliable sources like the Qur'an and Hadith. Nor should we get drawn into discussing views of radical feminists that redefine the terminology of reliable sources to suit their opinions.
I think the issue here is more RS rather than POV, but whatever it is, it's tricky, but we do have to tackle it eventually. Alastair Haines ( talk) 09:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Google books has Gunawan Adnan, Women and the Glorious Qur'an: An Analytical Study of Women-related Verses in Sura An Nisa`, 2004.
From what I could see it was a quality source. It appears to engage seriously with the best sources of feminist theory (unlike our current article). I don't know how representative of Islam Gunawan is, but the title of his book seems heartfelt, not irony. He looks to me like an " Islamic feminist" rather like Christians for Biblical Equity are "Christian feminists", this may mean he's not really a mainstream Qur'an interpreter. However, such "compromise" positions normally get published in any debate and at least it's some kind of Islamic response.
If anyone is interested in writing up feminist accusations of misogyny against Islam, here's something to help you present it a little more from the NPOV anyway. Cheers. Alastair Haines ( talk) 02:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Text removed again. Please stop adding original research. Believing men are superior to women is specifically called male chauvinism. Misogyny is the hatred of women. There is a difference between the two that the recent edits by the anon completely ignored. We need to have a source that specifically uses the word "misogyny". We cannot quote the Qur'an in places we personally feel are sexist, and claim that it is coming from a hatred of women (i.e. "misogyny"). That is the epitome of original research, which is strictly forbidden. I suggest that the anon read up on basic wikipedia policy before trying to edit further. Sorry to be blunt, but these edits are clearly unacceptable, and not inline with the basic mission of Wikipedia, and they need to stop right here and now.- Andrew c [talk] 13:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why quoting the qur'an to illustrate the islamic standpoint on women is not neutral (that standpoint is obvious to anyone who has ever seen a picture of a muslim society) is unacceptable ? I am re-adding the text. And yes obviously the quran is POV, obviously it shows the islamic POV. If the quran directly states that women are inferior, which it does, surely such a fact should be mentioned on this page ? There are 1 billion people living their lives by order of that book, and therefore it affects the lives of 500 million women.
I think I've worked out what the NPOV on this article is. From what I can see in the literature, misogyny has broadly three contexts of usage as a word, each has slightly different associations, consistently identifiable in their contexts.
It would appear that the feminist theory of structural embedding of misogyny has been widely considered plausible, and alongside use of the word in this technical sense, the usual English usage is also found -- i.e. writers speak of misogyny without clearly intending the feminist technical sense, but aware of the basic idea of "hatred towards women".
Now, two critical encyclopedic considerations are:
The next thing to note is that feminism falls within the science of sociology. There are well-known sources for the feminist theories of misogyny, just like there are sources for theories of nuclear physics. Sexual Politics by Kate Millet is the "Genesis" of feminist ideology regarding misogyny. There is a "canon" of feminist works that sociologists occasionally add to, or subtract from. These are found in the bibliographies provided by standard reference works in the discipline of sociology. Kate Millet's original research has become so well accepted by feminists that it is now hard to be a "true feminist" without affirming belief in "misogyny". If we want to know what the feminist POV is, we look for reliable secondary sources that tell us what the feminist "canon" is. Now we can consult those works and those who comment on them for an authentic picture of the feminist theory of misogyny.
One thing we can do is quote Kate Millet, it would be odd not to do so, because she is a primary source. Because she is part of the "official canon" we would be rather unencylopedic not to quote the most reliable source regarding feminist views on mysogyny. Also, by sticking closely to this "canon", we stay on topic, and stay where secondary sources will be most numerous, to guide our understanding of views pro and con "belief in embedded misogyny". So, for example, an anti-feminist work that isn't addressing ideas in Millet is probably going outside our brief, but likewise also feminst works that move beyond Millet and the central debate.
One thing we cannot do is assume embedded misogyny exists. That would be like writing an article about Islam and assuming Allah exists. The canonical sources of Islam believe Allah exists, so we must state this, along with quality secondary sources that might confirm the sources say this, support the objective reality, or challenge the objective reality of the "theory of Allah". In fact, we need to seek quality secondary sources that say each of these things to present a NPOV.
Another thing we cannot do is simply keep expanding the article to include every new book that argues for or against embedded misogyny. We need to find the canonical best examples that clarify or challenge interpretation of Sexual Politics and only change these if better sources become available (better defined by academic consensus) in that they offer new information. Likewise with new books covering old evidence for or against Kate Millet's theory. Additionally, we need to try to apportion appropriate weight to the arguments for and against. Since there is no "Non-misogyny" article we need to be extra careful to include such arguments here.
Unless people beat me to it, I'm going to rewrite the second half of this article to conform to normal encyclopedic practice (which is described in Wiki policy). I'm happy to do this because I'm very interested in the topic. I'll also declare my own personal opinion, so people can check to see if my opinion ends up biasing what I contribute. Personally, I think misogyny is common, but I don't believe in "embedded misogyny" (but I've not read Kate's work yet). I do believe in "embedded misandry" (as argued by the canonical source Legalizing Misandry).
I'll say in advance what I think would be the best strategy to push my POV were I that kind of person (but I'm not). The best way to undermine the feminist belief system is to express it as strongly as possible. The worse and more widespread misogyny is claimed to be, the better arguments against it look. "All men are liars" is disproved much more easily than "many men are liars".
It's going to take me a while to get around to doing all the research and writing it up. I would really appreciate it if someone else would do the work for us. I hope the bibliographical material I've been supplying saves someone else time, so they can save me time by writing the feminist section instead of me. Alastair Haines ( talk) 04:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wanting to note my support both for the decision to protect this article and to unprotect it. What I mean is, I think it is tragic that any article ever be protected, I don't think we need it here right now, and hopefully never will. However, I have noticed that there's been a fair bit of "edit turn-over"—the same kind of text being reverted and restored—without discussion of this on the talk page by those who want inclusion of this text. This has been coming from more than one anonymous editor. These editors must know that there is a talk page, since they have quoted a source cited here, however they have not actually responded with a case for inclusion, in response to the administrator's case against inclusion. A low level of protection encourages anonymous editors to register or use the talk page regarding these edits, and saves the admin the tedious job of repeatedly removing OR and POV commentary on a source. This was a good idea in my opinion. I have sympathy with what I imagine are the concerns of all parties involved, and also with some parties who are not!
I hope I'll be able to help eventually, by providing sourced text from the NPOV expressing the sorts of things the anonymous posters have been trying to include. In the mean time, I'd like to encourage anyone wanting to contribute text from the feminist POV on misogyny to do so, only please try to source it. A quote farm would be easy to produce, and a lot better than what we currently have. Cheers. Alastair Haines ( talk) 05:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Just thought I'd drop this onto the talk page, may come in handy some time if we need a reliable source from the Islamic POV.
On July 1 when removing my edit of the Usage section, "Among the concerns some of Hillary Clinton female backers have with Barack Obama is the perception that he can slide into misogynist comments at the blink of an eye.", Alastair Haines noted, "Usage: nice contemporary example, BUT misogyny is not named in the reference provided, so the interpretation of the primary source is the editor's".
I believe:
Is there any objection to its reinclusion but perhaps with the qualifier used in a previous edit, "...using the related word misogynist..."?
Bgautrea (
talk) 18:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a great example to me. Context would help clarify whether it is the run-of-the-mill, tongue-in-cheek exaggeration typical of English usage until the 60s and 70s, or whether it is more in line with popularised usage of the feminist technical term. In either case it would be relevant and helpful. And in neither case would it need to be carefully justified. Fictional characters certainly help drain examples of unwanted commentary on real people and events. Alastair Haines ( talk) 10:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
exist such word called misoinian (hate to the wine) ?.
-- 190.47.241.187 ( talk) 00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)-- 190.47.241.187 ( talk) 00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
There are a large number of authors cited expressing negative views towards women, particularly (at time of writing) philosophers but also religious texts. I have two points to raise which I believe need to be addressed:
The article on Misogyny focuses primarily on misogyny in the western hemisphere. Except for a small paragraph, here is hardly any mention of misogyny in the rest of the world. I therefore placed the "toofewopinions" tag. Feel free to let me know if you think the tag is not justified. Please state your reasons too.
( Neutronstar2007 ( talk) 02:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC))
Whats the male equivalent of misogyny, that is, the word for hatred of men? -- 98.232.180.37 ( talk) 05:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I had a very in depth relationship with a male of this persuasion, meaning sexually intimate. The causes and roots to this phenomenon for this individual, to me, were very simplistic. A dominating mother, lacking in compassion, love and nurturing, absent in times of need, violence and degredation. The parents divorced. A father, also a Misogynist,who sexualized this individual, along with his brother at the ages of 7 and 8 years, during weekend stayovers. The degree of abuse was severe, also the father offered up his sons to his pediphile freinds. Another issue, its possible that the mother also defiled the sons sexually, at some point in their adolescent years. I believe these practices were generational for this family. I can definitely see how this individual could hate women, startin with his mother. 76.115.150.149 ( talk) 02:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of white space under the Greek section. Can this be corrected? Surv1v4l1st ( Talk| Contribs) 23:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
"Blessed art thou, O God, for not making me a Gentile, slave, or woman."
Very little on women in Judaism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.28.244 ( talk) 10:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia tends to suppress any criticism of Jews. Have you noticed there are long articles on "Criticism of Islam", "Criticism of Christianity" but almost nothing on "Criticism of Judaism" (there is an article that discuss only criticisms from a purely theological point of view). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.194.96 ( talk) 16:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Would the Epistles mention please specify the section(s) - like "Rom 16:1" ? Markbassett ( talk) 03:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The claims that certain quotes are misogynistic in this article must be backed up by appropriate apolitical sources or they will be deleted. Jgda 00:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Moving deleted content here:
I still do not understand the justification for deleting this content, instead of tagging it. I googled "John Knox misogyny" and I found Knox's misogyny is legendary. and there is more to Knox's literary legacy than misogynist polemic. and for a misogynist as Knox and Knox's theories about women rulers reveal him as a misogynist and a prude just from the first page of results. Same for Nietzsche and Weininger. And these aren't just blog hits, they all got hits from JSTOR and universities. How is this content unsourced? Each section specifically says where the quotes come from, and what books are in question. Seems sourced to me.-- Andrew c 01:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is Katherine M. Rogers quoted at length? In the first instance, the quote is inelegant and better paraphrased; in the second instance, Rogers foretells a war between the sexes and makes dubious, overblown conclusions about man's response to women's rights — it's untempered vitriol, not suitable for an encyclopedia. If she must be included, she should be paraphrased or quoted at smaller length, lest the article implicitly endorse her views (contra NPOV). Rintrah 14:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
While a "seducer" like Casanova or Don Juan might appear outwardly charming and to enjoy the company of women, some may interpret these figures as being disrespectful of women, or as having no interest in them other than as sex objects and/or as trophies to collect as would a hunter.
I refer you to WP:WEASEL. Rintrah 00:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be a good idea to add a link to a website that discusses how to end feelings of misogyny? I've done a search for the last 45 minutes/hour and all I've found are self-pitying rants against men, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheRedVest ( talk • contribs) 02:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
Someone has disputed the following section, so I have moved it to talk to clear up issues, or decide whether it is notable enough, encyclopedic enough, and formatted to go live:
And here is someone's comments that they added to the main article space:
- Andrew c 23:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Shoopshoop 02:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly how useful is it, even if tenuous citations are found, to level accusations of misogyny at fictional characters? It's problematic enough doing so with authors but heck, isn't the standard way of going about this to use the fictional character as symptomatic of cultural norms during textual production (with of course no consideration for irony, thematic depth or social relativism)? Jgda 23:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Added some info and split Philosphy & Religion in two as an attempt to make this article a bit more solid, actually citing references from Jack Holland's book and the Bible. It is merely a starting point so please bear with me - edit it, put it in a more organized manner - this article is begging for some massive reviewing. Betina 22:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
This page is full of OR. Take this passage: "Other forms of misogyny may be more subtle. Some misogynists may simply be prejudiced against all women, or may hate women who do not fall into one or more acceptable categories. Entire cultures may be said to be misogynist if they treat women in ways that can be seen as harmful. Examples include forcing women to tend to all domestic responsibilities, demanding silence from a woman, or beating a woman. Subscribers to one model, the mother/whore dichotomy, hold that women can only be "mothers" or "whores." Another variant is the virgin/whore dichotomy, in which women who do not adhere to a saintly standard of moral purity are considered "whores."" Where are the citations for this? 69.86.156.243 14:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It could be mentioned that misogyny comes from a greek word that "miso-" means in greek "hate" and "-gyny", "woman"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.88.124 ( talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
So...the Greeks hated women? 144.92.84.206 ( talk) 17:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, entries like this one are really tricky. I haven't read the rape entry, but some crimes against women are, and always have been crimes throughout history and across cultures. However, I don't think it was until recently that misogyny was used as a technical term to describe a theory of some kind of institutionalised hatred of women.
Misanthropy is not criminality. Anti-social eccentricity, reclusiveness, cynicism — Scrooge yes, Jack the Ripper no. To my understanding, misogyny used to describe some confirmed bachelors, the "hatred" was hyperbolic, merely a simplistic use of a Greek prefix. Arachnaphobia is common, sometimes extreme (like with me, but I'm Australian and spiders here are deadly); but phobia in this word is hyperbolic, "fear" only in a broad way.
The standard Greek lexicon, Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, revised and augmented by Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940, ISBN 0198642261) does have an entry for he misogunia (ἡ μισογῦνια). However, it only cites two attested uses in extant Greek manuscripts — On marriage by Antipater of Tarsus (c. 150 BC), a stoic, who argued marriage is the foundation of the state, based on divine decree. The editio princeps is, of course, Hans Friedrich August von Arnim's Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta ( SVF, Old Stoic Fragments, 1903). The word can be found in context there in volume 3, page 255. More conveniently, Will Deming provides a critical text and translation in Appendix A to Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7. Misogunia appears in the accusative case on page 224 as the fifth word in line 33 of Deming's Greek text. (It is split over lines 25–26 in von Arnim.)
Antipater uses misogunia to describe Euripides' usual writing — tēn en to graphein misogunian. His point seems to be that even a misogynist like Euripides cannot help but praise wives, and goes on to quote him doing just this. It is quite a warm, fuzzy bit of writing.
The second use of the word is by Chrysippus in a fragment from On affections quoted by Galen in Hippocrates on Affections. This is also in SVF volume three, the first word on page 103, the first word of a list of three "disaffections" — women, wine and humanity (misogunian, misoinian, misanthrōpian). Sounds like a general " party-pooper" to me! Chrysippus seems to be saying such things are symptoms of underlying cognitive distemper. Galen does not agree with Chrysippus. There is considerable secondary literature regarding the philosophical debate.
What a great way to start the article, but I can imagine it lasting all of 24 hours before it is removed. Perhaps we will be reminded that Wiki is not a dictionary to include such etymological digressions, perhaps some kind of bad faith will be assumed, and it will be challenged as OR or POV, perhaps no such Wiki lawyering will be offered, it will simply disappear without discussion.
I may do some work on this article, but I'm tired of cited material being removed after hours tracing sources. I simply don't have time or inclination to monitor changes. I'm afraid I find documenting sources for "sensitive" entries at Wiki often ends up being like writing letters with a finger in thin air. Doesn't stop me contributing, but it does mean I leave the censors to their own conscience, and let them "own" "their" entries.
Anyway, I had a lot of fun discovering, contrary to my expectations, that misogyny is indeed a loanword from Koine Greek, rather than a modern technical term. ;) Alastair Haines ( talk) 10:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm amazed that there's nothing on Islam, Hinduism or the various other religions. There's a lot of information out there. For example, male guardianship and lack of womens rights in Islam [5], the practice of Sati to name two. 59.92.34.59 ( talk) 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if my edits were reverted on accident due to an edit conflict, or if there were reasons for the restoration of some links and removal of others. So I felt, instead of risk any chance of edit warring, come here to figure out what links should go in the "see also" section. I feel like the links that are already present in the lead should not be repeated in the see "also section". I agree with removing a number of links and keeping the section to a minimum, but I feel JCDenton2052 removed a few too many. Anyway, what do others think?- Andrew c [talk] 01:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I care more about See also than I thought. Alastair Haines ( talk) 03:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The following section refers to a documented event, and accurately reports key features and the overall intention. I located the primary source from the Vatican website. There is additional, related material there also. However, in none of the primary material could I find reference to women as claimed in the Wiki text. When I can't find things, I never assume they do not exist. But, ultimately, if there is no actual evidence for something, we can't assert that thing at Wiki. A thing that might exist but has not been observed can indeed be notable -- extraterrestrial intelligence, for example. Things that do not or have not existed can also be notable -- unicorn, for example. Please, someone, find a reliable source documenting the following.
“ | During the Great Jubilee, Pope John Paul II issued an apology for all the past sins of the Roman Catholic Church, dividing the sins into seven categories. Among general sins, sins in service of the truth, sins against Christian unity, sins against Jews, sins against respect of love, peace and culture, and sins against human rights, he also apologized for sins against the dignity of women and minorities. | ” |
We probably also need to discuss if this actually refers to misogyny. In the mind of the editor who supplied this text, "sins against the dignity of women" are prompted by misogyny and therefore relevant. I can see that point, but I'm not so sure. I would think an internet phisher stealing credit card info from a woman is sinning against her dignity, but would assume he robs men as well. We need published theological comment on such a claim, at the least, and probably ethical comment on what consistitutes dignity.
To my understanding violence is often a crime against human dignity. Is it a crime to arrest someone who resists, however. At what point do we have "undue force" and violence. May women resist arrest for smuggling drugs, since using force against them would be violence against women. Would the female police officer attempting this be driven by misogyny?
I think I'm getting an idea of the shape a mature version of this entry must take.
The more clear it is what we are not talking about, and what is theory and opinion, versus what has been recorded and documented, the more statisfied readers will be. Published theories must be included of course, and hopefully along with criticism.
Ah! Such a long way to go. Cheers all. Alastair Haines ( talk) 03:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
While I don't doubt the editor who provided a summary of Holland's views has done so accurately. If the summary is accurate, Holland is simply wrong about Eve in Gensis. Famously, Da Vinci portrays Eve under God's arm in The creation of man. Da Vinci simply reflected the history of interpretation of Genesis. In my reading, while suggestions of Eve being an after thought do exist in publication, these are not taken seriously by Bible scholars of any tradition, including the many self-confessed atheists among them. The view is not even typical of so-called feminist theologians.
The reason I raise this is that, where scholars make errors, it seems good form and practical to overlook this in article text. Unless their errors are really pertinent to debate, it only adds digression to articles. If Holland uses the word misogyny to describe ideology underlying both Eve and Pandora narratives (and I presume he does), he belongs in the article. If he doesn't, he doesn't (sorry for that sentence).
Additionally, at some point we will need to clarify yet another concept. Is the Second Sex concept isomorphic with the mysogyny concept? Personally, I can't see how that can possibly be rationally maintained. Our children are second, therefore we hate them? Do we really expect to find peer-reviewed scholars getting away with sloppy thinking without there being published criticism? Let's not allow the article to fall into tangential debates regarding logical trivialities.
On the other hand, to suggest that the two ideas might be related, however, seems unquestionably obvious. Racism is an example. Native American "pale face" may well have had derogatory implications. I've been told Indonesian slang bule implies sickness and weakness, which is what pale skin suggests in that culture. To ancient cultures, outsiders were barbarians -- second class non citizens.
Is viewing others as weaker always followed by hatred and violence? How do soldiers treat their wounded comrades? What do we do when friends are sick or vulnerable?
Men can view women in much more than one anti-social (and factually wrong) way. Some of these may be classified as misogyny, for others such a classification will probably not appear in serious academic treatments. Over protective fathers withholding car keys until the mini-skirt is exchanged for jeans may be underestimating and devaluing their daughter's ability to manage social situations, however it seems somewhat problematic to call this hatred.
I bet I can find sources that will suggest some silly things like this, but I'd be wasting everyone's time writing them into the article, because they'll be redundant as soon as quality sources are found.
I guess I'm working out what I'm looking for sources to teach me. How is hatred in gender relations observed and defined? What sort of studies have been proposed and conducted regarding it? Are there general characteristics of hatred that can be applied in analogous ways in cases of race, age, gender, disability etc.? Are there also differences between these things, which mean hatred of men or hatred of women are unique and special problems?
I guess I'm also interested that the Greeks listed mysogyny as a disease, but the exhaustive modern western catalogues of psychological diseases do not mention it? Is mysogyny more of an informal description of, no doubt accurate, perceptions of typical male frustrations with women? Are there symptoms to show this can actually be or become pathological in some men? Are the genders truly equal? Do women show exactly the same things? Do we actually have any answers for these questions? Are they currently being researched? How?
When I stop to think about it, I don't know the answers. Not only that, I can't know the answers. Many of them need a lot of evidence to be examined closely, and I just don't have access to the evidence, nor the tools to analyse it. But I expect others do ...
I guess we have a lot of reading to do. Alastair Haines ( talk) 04:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Katherine M Rogers book is cited in a review by Jean R. Brink of Philip J Gallagher and others, Milton, the Bible, and Misogyny. In Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature 45 (1991): 94-95.
Her book is reviewed in Milton Quarterly 1 (1967): 9-10.
She also wrote Katherine M. Rogers, Feminism in Eighteenth-Century England, Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1982.
Katherine M. Rogers, "Dreams and Nightmares: Male Characters in the Feminine Novel of the Eighteenth Century", in Men by Women, ed. Janet...
I am doing some more research. The language in which she expresses her personal opinion is strong even for theological writers who call themselves feminists (that sentence would sound awful if I put it the other way around ;) ).
As such, this is probably yet another example of WP:UNDUE, where fringe writers with much education, much good to say, and the support of an editor and maybe a review committee, nonetheless say things way out of line with orthodoxy in their field. Personally, I think it is a matter of great importance that such writers are published, especially in the humanities. Censorship ultimately silences one's own heart and conscience. However, an encyclopedia is not the place for them to be cited as the "final word".
Given that Wikipedia will be visited by millions of people who hear or read Paul at least once a month (namely church-going Christians) claims of misogyny in Paul are vulnerable to massive documentation of verifiable counter-claims. I think this article should not become dominated by that debate. Claims of misogyny in the Bible will always be WP:UNDUE. They are discussed (I believe) in articles on Paul and his writings (and, imo, they ought to be).
There is genuine factual material in the Rogers quote. Yes, extra-marital sex is prohibited in the New Testament (including homosexual sex of any kind) -- 1 Corinthians 7 and others. Yes, men are forbidden to appoint women to positions of responsibility which include responsibility for men -- 1 Timothy 2 and others. However, she describes Paul in a way he would not describe himself, and in a way that the history of interpretation and the consensus of current interpretation would not use. Her descriptions are characteristic of her personal assessment of the (lack of) value in these ideas of Paul.
Personally, I cite writers like Rogers often, because they correctly understand what Paul teaches in these passages, while rejecting it out of hand. The reason I do that is because there are many people who claim to accept the Bible is always accurate, but, like Rogers, dislike Paul's teachings on sex and gender. In the writing of people like this, they seek to reinterpret Paul so that he is not saying these things. A famous and extreme example is John Spong. One of his ingenious readings of the New Testament sees Jesus marrying John, the gospel writer.
If we are looking for a neutral commentary on what Paul says, Rogers is not it. She doesn't claim to be. It is our fault, not hers if we cite her in such a way.
At this stage, the article is so small, Rogers may as well stay, but there is a huge difference between misogyny in Greek poets and various philosophers, and the alleged misogyny of the Bible. We should also note the philosophy section respects the discipline enough to give examples of non mysogynistic philosophers (at least, in the editor's opinion). Of course, no serious Bible scholar is going to list biblical writings that are or are not misogynistic.
If anyone seriously wants to research mysogyny in the Bible, gather sources and start an article, 'cause I'll be happy to provide any amount of counter sources to ensure neutrality. In the mean time though, there are more fruitful ways of building this article. Alastair Haines ( talk) 06:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to get my hands on books like this one
Perhaps it's been scanned and is available on the internet. It strikes me as a very Wiki / encyclopedic approach to this topic. Human beings disagree from time to time. That two brothers disagree about who will take out the garbage does not mean they hate each other. It's amazing how many bad sources there are, that conclude generalities from specifics on this subject. I'd quote some in this article, but people would accuse me of trying to humiliate their case. ;) Anyway, I'm sure we'll get things worked out here eventually. Alastair Haines ( talk) 07:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This text was removed as POV. I think I agree, but it claims to be sourced, so I'm restoring it here for discussion. One aspect of NPOV is striving to articulate all significant POVs. The trick is presenting those POVs neutrally. Is that achieved here? Why or why not? If it is unacceptable POV, what is the POV that is being expressed?
In Islam, it is regarded as the literal word of Allah that "Men are superior to women" ( Quran 34:4). There is no agreement on what the punishment is for a woman that does not accept the superiority of men in Islam, although imprisonment and beatings are sanctified by Allah ( Quran 4:34). In extreme cases, a Muslim family might commit an Honor Killing. Sometimes, a junior member of the family, or even the son or brother of the disobedient woman, is forced to commit the act, because western law systems dictate very limited punishment for juvenile offenders. It is not clear under what circumstances an honor killing is permitted in Islam, however the Islamic prophet did indeed commit honor killings, one woman was killed for merely disagreeing with him: Asma_Bint_Marwan.
Qur'an 34:4 according to Pickthall at www.Islam.tc has,
But Qur'an 4:34 has,
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
So I think the first Qur'an reference is a typo.
It would also appear that the proposed Wiki text about is indeed a biased reading of the Qur'an, because Pickthall translates the first sentence as a statement backed by two reasons marked by because.
I also suspect "imprisonment and beatings" is again only half true, since there is a more obvious interpretation of "beds apart" in English at least.
However, I think my comments are quibbles. It does sound like a feminist argument that Islam is misogynistic, which is precisely one POV the article needs. I think all we need is a feminist source that makes the points. I don't think that will be hard to find.
The trick here is how to be neutral, since Sura 4 of the Qur'an is all about how to look after women, as I'm sure Islamic sources will note. What do we do when sources clash? The Islamic view of looking after women is quite different to the feminist view. But also, there is Muslim culture that goes beyond the Qur'an, and feminist views that go beyond accepted definitions and call anything they don't like misogyny.
I'm thinking aloud atm, but I suspect Wiki should not get drawn into discussing actions by people of Muslim background not based on reliable sources like the Qur'an and Hadith. Nor should we get drawn into discussing views of radical feminists that redefine the terminology of reliable sources to suit their opinions.
I think the issue here is more RS rather than POV, but whatever it is, it's tricky, but we do have to tackle it eventually. Alastair Haines ( talk) 09:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Google books has Gunawan Adnan, Women and the Glorious Qur'an: An Analytical Study of Women-related Verses in Sura An Nisa`, 2004.
From what I could see it was a quality source. It appears to engage seriously with the best sources of feminist theory (unlike our current article). I don't know how representative of Islam Gunawan is, but the title of his book seems heartfelt, not irony. He looks to me like an " Islamic feminist" rather like Christians for Biblical Equity are "Christian feminists", this may mean he's not really a mainstream Qur'an interpreter. However, such "compromise" positions normally get published in any debate and at least it's some kind of Islamic response.
If anyone is interested in writing up feminist accusations of misogyny against Islam, here's something to help you present it a little more from the NPOV anyway. Cheers. Alastair Haines ( talk) 02:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Text removed again. Please stop adding original research. Believing men are superior to women is specifically called male chauvinism. Misogyny is the hatred of women. There is a difference between the two that the recent edits by the anon completely ignored. We need to have a source that specifically uses the word "misogyny". We cannot quote the Qur'an in places we personally feel are sexist, and claim that it is coming from a hatred of women (i.e. "misogyny"). That is the epitome of original research, which is strictly forbidden. I suggest that the anon read up on basic wikipedia policy before trying to edit further. Sorry to be blunt, but these edits are clearly unacceptable, and not inline with the basic mission of Wikipedia, and they need to stop right here and now.- Andrew c [talk] 13:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why quoting the qur'an to illustrate the islamic standpoint on women is not neutral (that standpoint is obvious to anyone who has ever seen a picture of a muslim society) is unacceptable ? I am re-adding the text. And yes obviously the quran is POV, obviously it shows the islamic POV. If the quran directly states that women are inferior, which it does, surely such a fact should be mentioned on this page ? There are 1 billion people living their lives by order of that book, and therefore it affects the lives of 500 million women.
I think I've worked out what the NPOV on this article is. From what I can see in the literature, misogyny has broadly three contexts of usage as a word, each has slightly different associations, consistently identifiable in their contexts.
It would appear that the feminist theory of structural embedding of misogyny has been widely considered plausible, and alongside use of the word in this technical sense, the usual English usage is also found -- i.e. writers speak of misogyny without clearly intending the feminist technical sense, but aware of the basic idea of "hatred towards women".
Now, two critical encyclopedic considerations are:
The next thing to note is that feminism falls within the science of sociology. There are well-known sources for the feminist theories of misogyny, just like there are sources for theories of nuclear physics. Sexual Politics by Kate Millet is the "Genesis" of feminist ideology regarding misogyny. There is a "canon" of feminist works that sociologists occasionally add to, or subtract from. These are found in the bibliographies provided by standard reference works in the discipline of sociology. Kate Millet's original research has become so well accepted by feminists that it is now hard to be a "true feminist" without affirming belief in "misogyny". If we want to know what the feminist POV is, we look for reliable secondary sources that tell us what the feminist "canon" is. Now we can consult those works and those who comment on them for an authentic picture of the feminist theory of misogyny.
One thing we can do is quote Kate Millet, it would be odd not to do so, because she is a primary source. Because she is part of the "official canon" we would be rather unencylopedic not to quote the most reliable source regarding feminist views on mysogyny. Also, by sticking closely to this "canon", we stay on topic, and stay where secondary sources will be most numerous, to guide our understanding of views pro and con "belief in embedded misogyny". So, for example, an anti-feminist work that isn't addressing ideas in Millet is probably going outside our brief, but likewise also feminst works that move beyond Millet and the central debate.
One thing we cannot do is assume embedded misogyny exists. That would be like writing an article about Islam and assuming Allah exists. The canonical sources of Islam believe Allah exists, so we must state this, along with quality secondary sources that might confirm the sources say this, support the objective reality, or challenge the objective reality of the "theory of Allah". In fact, we need to seek quality secondary sources that say each of these things to present a NPOV.
Another thing we cannot do is simply keep expanding the article to include every new book that argues for or against embedded misogyny. We need to find the canonical best examples that clarify or challenge interpretation of Sexual Politics and only change these if better sources become available (better defined by academic consensus) in that they offer new information. Likewise with new books covering old evidence for or against Kate Millet's theory. Additionally, we need to try to apportion appropriate weight to the arguments for and against. Since there is no "Non-misogyny" article we need to be extra careful to include such arguments here.
Unless people beat me to it, I'm going to rewrite the second half of this article to conform to normal encyclopedic practice (which is described in Wiki policy). I'm happy to do this because I'm very interested in the topic. I'll also declare my own personal opinion, so people can check to see if my opinion ends up biasing what I contribute. Personally, I think misogyny is common, but I don't believe in "embedded misogyny" (but I've not read Kate's work yet). I do believe in "embedded misandry" (as argued by the canonical source Legalizing Misandry).
I'll say in advance what I think would be the best strategy to push my POV were I that kind of person (but I'm not). The best way to undermine the feminist belief system is to express it as strongly as possible. The worse and more widespread misogyny is claimed to be, the better arguments against it look. "All men are liars" is disproved much more easily than "many men are liars".
It's going to take me a while to get around to doing all the research and writing it up. I would really appreciate it if someone else would do the work for us. I hope the bibliographical material I've been supplying saves someone else time, so they can save me time by writing the feminist section instead of me. Alastair Haines ( talk) 04:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wanting to note my support both for the decision to protect this article and to unprotect it. What I mean is, I think it is tragic that any article ever be protected, I don't think we need it here right now, and hopefully never will. However, I have noticed that there's been a fair bit of "edit turn-over"—the same kind of text being reverted and restored—without discussion of this on the talk page by those who want inclusion of this text. This has been coming from more than one anonymous editor. These editors must know that there is a talk page, since they have quoted a source cited here, however they have not actually responded with a case for inclusion, in response to the administrator's case against inclusion. A low level of protection encourages anonymous editors to register or use the talk page regarding these edits, and saves the admin the tedious job of repeatedly removing OR and POV commentary on a source. This was a good idea in my opinion. I have sympathy with what I imagine are the concerns of all parties involved, and also with some parties who are not!
I hope I'll be able to help eventually, by providing sourced text from the NPOV expressing the sorts of things the anonymous posters have been trying to include. In the mean time, I'd like to encourage anyone wanting to contribute text from the feminist POV on misogyny to do so, only please try to source it. A quote farm would be easy to produce, and a lot better than what we currently have. Cheers. Alastair Haines ( talk) 05:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Just thought I'd drop this onto the talk page, may come in handy some time if we need a reliable source from the Islamic POV.
On July 1 when removing my edit of the Usage section, "Among the concerns some of Hillary Clinton female backers have with Barack Obama is the perception that he can slide into misogynist comments at the blink of an eye.", Alastair Haines noted, "Usage: nice contemporary example, BUT misogyny is not named in the reference provided, so the interpretation of the primary source is the editor's".
I believe:
Is there any objection to its reinclusion but perhaps with the qualifier used in a previous edit, "...using the related word misogynist..."?
Bgautrea (
talk) 18:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a great example to me. Context would help clarify whether it is the run-of-the-mill, tongue-in-cheek exaggeration typical of English usage until the 60s and 70s, or whether it is more in line with popularised usage of the feminist technical term. In either case it would be relevant and helpful. And in neither case would it need to be carefully justified. Fictional characters certainly help drain examples of unwanted commentary on real people and events. Alastair Haines ( talk) 10:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
exist such word called misoinian (hate to the wine) ?.
-- 190.47.241.187 ( talk) 00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)-- 190.47.241.187 ( talk) 00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
There are a large number of authors cited expressing negative views towards women, particularly (at time of writing) philosophers but also religious texts. I have two points to raise which I believe need to be addressed:
The article on Misogyny focuses primarily on misogyny in the western hemisphere. Except for a small paragraph, here is hardly any mention of misogyny in the rest of the world. I therefore placed the "toofewopinions" tag. Feel free to let me know if you think the tag is not justified. Please state your reasons too.
( Neutronstar2007 ( talk) 02:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC))
Whats the male equivalent of misogyny, that is, the word for hatred of men? -- 98.232.180.37 ( talk) 05:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I had a very in depth relationship with a male of this persuasion, meaning sexually intimate. The causes and roots to this phenomenon for this individual, to me, were very simplistic. A dominating mother, lacking in compassion, love and nurturing, absent in times of need, violence and degredation. The parents divorced. A father, also a Misogynist,who sexualized this individual, along with his brother at the ages of 7 and 8 years, during weekend stayovers. The degree of abuse was severe, also the father offered up his sons to his pediphile freinds. Another issue, its possible that the mother also defiled the sons sexually, at some point in their adolescent years. I believe these practices were generational for this family. I can definitely see how this individual could hate women, startin with his mother. 76.115.150.149 ( talk) 02:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of white space under the Greek section. Can this be corrected? Surv1v4l1st ( Talk| Contribs) 23:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
"Blessed art thou, O God, for not making me a Gentile, slave, or woman."
Very little on women in Judaism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.28.244 ( talk) 10:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia tends to suppress any criticism of Jews. Have you noticed there are long articles on "Criticism of Islam", "Criticism of Christianity" but almost nothing on "Criticism of Judaism" (there is an article that discuss only criticisms from a purely theological point of view). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.194.96 ( talk) 16:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)