"The New Nigger" an essay on misogyny

[Stark]

I think all its saying is that using the term to poison the well is bad. She might believe in a fair and open debate that people labelled 'misogynist' would win in some way, but I don't see this as particularly offensive.

[Grumman]

The words here just aren't comparable. It's hard to think of how you could use misogynist (or racist or bigot) in the same way as a word such as nigger, or similar terms, though I imagine feminazi is in the same category as it if not at the same level.

I think you're incorrect. An anglicised word for the colour black is not offensive on its own merits, it became offensive because of how it's used and has been used. The same reasoning explains why "Jap" is considered racist in the US but "Aussie" is not. There's no reason why a word with an in-built negative connotation could not be misused in the same way - some would argue that "illegal immigrant" already is.

[Imperial528]

The words here just aren't comparable. It's hard to think of how you could use misogynist (or racist or bigot) in the same way as a word such as nigger, or similar terms, though I imagine feminazi is in the same category as it if not at the same level.

I think you're incorrect. An anglicised word for the colour black is not offensive on its own merits, it became offensive because of how it's used and has been used. The same reasoning explains why "Jap" is considered racist in the US but "Aussie" is not. There's no reason why a word with an in-built negative connotation could not be misused in the same way - some would argue that "illegal immigrant" already is.

Truth be told my first draft of my post addressed exactly that where I now have what you quoted.

And while I agree that yes, words can be misused and made to express their original meanings in a different context (such is how language grows, after all), the author of this article is doing that them self in implying that misogynist is used in such a manner in the first place. A language doesn't change based on exceptions to its rules*, and even intentional misuse of a word is still, well, a misuse. In the current and historical definitions, nigger describes a person as inferior to everyone else on some basis of who they are that they have no control over, such as race or in some cases simply familial relationships, especially with someone of another race.
Misogynist and racist describe ideas and behaviors, and they hold a negative connotation because our culture has, for good reason, associated negative attributes to such ideas and behaviors. Bigot is a sort of in-between since it is also much more general and far reaching.

I imagine that yes, one could use those words (Especially bigot, given how vague it is in context) as insults and use the same implications that nigger carries with it. Yet at the end of the day, misogynist still describes ideas and behaviors but it does not, in itself, imply that the person with those ideas and behaviors is somehow less of a human being for them. Even when misused so as to imply such a person is inferior, I still don't think it's on the same level.
Because quite frankly, one is judging a person for how they were born, and the second for how they have acted, and I honestly think the later is much more acceptable than the former.

*Well, it does if we let culture baggage get attached to it, as is the case with Jap.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

don't agree with the author either, but I think your attack is kind of stretching. She thinks that men are unfairly treated, and that any man who disagrees with this is labeled a misogynist. Where does she state that she thinks men should return to their superior position?

By posting on that blog, whose masculínist position is essentially reversion to 1950s social requirements. I will also have you note that women remain so disadvantaged in modern society that arguing that women have overreached is, ipso facto, a proposal to return to 1950s social controls against women, as there isn't an intermediate step. I don't think for instance she's endorsing losing her right to vote like Phyllis Schayfly, but it's still unquestionably accepting men in a superiour position: Men are PRESENTLY in a superiour position.

She greatly overestimates the level of discrimination men face, but the main idea of her article is that no one's rights or opinions should be disregarded because they can be labeled as part of a n unpopular group.

Why?

Do I need to coddle Adolf Hitler's opinion on the Jews now?

Do I need to coddle every KKK member and be like, "yeah, yeah, let's have a reasoned debate on whether or not all white people were created by Jesus and all black people are monkeys with an IQ of 20".

Some peoples' opinions are not suited to a society of equals. That includes those of these kinds of male rights groups' members. They should be crushed, constricted, and eliminated until there is no more rape culture and people like this are allowed to express their freedom of speech by standing in a tiny little group on a street corner in giant phallus costumes screaming "Male rights!" while five hundred cops protect them from ten thousand screaming protesters, just exactly like Neo-Nazis and the KKK get to do.

I'm bigoted, perhaps? Oh you betcha, I'm bigoted against what's wrong in favour of what's right. Misogyny has no place in society, and we will continue to struggle until it is destroyed.

[Alkaloid]

The problem with the comparison she used is that for it to make sense she has to believe that people being called misogynists are in fact misogynists, and that the misogynists are in fact morally correct, as she put it. You can probably construct, like korto said, a decent argument that some advocates for mens rights, particularly in the are of things like access to children after a divorce are not in fact misogynists and that the reason they are acting as they do has nothing to do with a belief of mens innate superiority over or hatred of women, but concern that fathers and husbands are regularly treated unfairly in the process. I'm not going to fall one way or the other on this particular argument because its an absolute disaster of a thread waiting to happen, but you could build an argument. There's nothing in this essay that indicates that is the authors opinion though, the way its written indicates she believes misogynist will become a word like nigger, seen as being used in an insulting manner by people who believe that men and women are equal in the same way that nigger is used by those that believe white people are inherently superior to black people. I imagine most people would find that offensive with the exception of actual misogynists.

[Scrib]

And of course, the title of misogynist will always be deployed against these people and not those who either have a legitimate grievance or disagree with the person doing the name calling?

[Alkaloid]

No, but the author does not make the case at any point that she thinks the word is being unfairly used. Not makes a poor case, does not even attempt to make the case. Thus the only conclusion you can draw from it is that she feels men are superior to women in the same way whites are not superior to blacks and that calling people out by accurately calling people misogynists is inherently wrong.

[Thanas]

can we all stop feeding the troll OP?

[Spekio]

Yes DPDP, we live in a post racial world with perfect equality and where there is not a growing backlash against feminism and a growing acceptance of sexual assaults etc.

Seriosuly? I'm going to ask you to prove it.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

The Dude says, "Aw, you fuckin' fascist!" Don't we all remember how misogynists were legally inferior just because of their appearance? Don't we remember how their appearance marked them as personal property for life? Don't we remember how you could kill a misogynist and none would care unless its owner was rich? Don't we remember how it had no rights even if you freed it? Don't we remember how misogynists couldn't join the army, go to the same schools (and often no schools at all) or piss in the same toilet? Don't we remember how you could kill one misogynist to teach others their place? Don't we all remember?

No we don't. But here's a question: if you took a progressive male feminist and turned him upside down, would he become a backwards female phallocrat? I guess he would.

[General Zod]

Yes DPDP, we live in a post racial world with perfect equality and where there is not a growing backlash against feminism and a growing acceptance of sexual assaults etc.

Seriosuly? I'm going to ask you to prove it.

Have you missed all the recent legislation by the GOP to redefine rape?

[Spekio]

World equals the United States of America? I don't live there. Where Ilive, where abortion is generally illegal, since 1945 it is legal for victims of rape. That's a good 30 years before people could divorce.

Last time someone tried to get legislation to ban abortion even when there was risk to the mother or was a result of rape,it got shot down. Fast. Court rulligns have been increasingly favorable to reproductive rights.

Since '09, men can legally be raped - as oposed to only women. So no,not all the world is getting more accepting of sexual assault.


I'm going to assume you mean the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”, and the "forcible rape" thing.

So no, they are not redefining rape, Under H.R. 3, only victims of “forcible rape” would qualify for federally funded abortions. Not statutory rapre, or rape by fraud. But then Mitt Romney goes and do this . Even the conservative candidate distanced himself from that bill.

Pardon my ignorance, but how is that different from the "ban abortions" stance that the religious right has since,oh,I don't know, ever?