How to spot misogynists and misandrists

[Leigha]

I'd say that types like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby tend to spring to mind, when the term ''misogyny'' comes up. But, this article points out that they're not always easy to spot. Same for misandrists. There are also women out there who have a prejudice towards men, or loathe men, in general. It's important to note that most misogynists and misandrists have dealt with early childhood trauma of some type, and perhaps, this is the mechanism by which they've learned to navigate through life.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-mysteries-love/201502/12-ways-spot-misogynist

https://sswmen.wordpress.com/2017/01/07/12-ways-misandrist/

What you'll note from these two articles, is that they're nearly identical. Just swapping out the term ''men'' for ''women,'' when it comes to misandry.

[C C]

With the possible addition of an arrest record and being more overt as such from the start, the misogynist list of traits sounds similar to a common conception of "bad-boy." The latter ironically having much magnetic appeal to some (especially younger women). Some theories advanced about that in the past, but most have probably fallen apart under further scrutiny or failure to replicate a study: Why women choose bad boys: Ovulating women perceive sexy cads as good dads

Notice they've got one for female misogynists, too. I don't wholly agree with it or it seems lop-sided in perspective. If leaving out women who are critics of women who themselves don't subscribe to "ideal femininity" (are either neutral or at least a tad on the butch side). I've witnessed plenty of them express disdain for girly-girls. I've quasi-hypocritically done it myself from time to time (particularly with respect to public figures, celebrities, etc), though hopefully there was little genuine belief or seriousness in what I'd say. More an opportunistic reflex to either open or augment a conversation when waiting around for something to finally move or happen, with respect to particular situations while in the company of colleagues or strangers.

These days I see people getting flagged as _X_ even when they only exhibit mild levels that consist more of idle talk rather than an actual history of detrimental behavior. At times it seems like we no longer have degrees for any human classification. Uttering a mere sentence gets a person stamped as maximum _X_ and deserving of ostracism, job loss, a perpetual stigma-inducing profile deposited by some agency or angry individual on the web, etc. Life among the Neo-Priggish.

[Leigha]

Agree, CC. I liken it to racism - when one holds a prejudice of an entire group of people based on their race, for example. As for misogyny, men shouldn't be called misogynists who are merely sexists by nature. The occasional, garden variety ''bad boy'' isn't really one, either. But, men who have a disdain, a loathing of women, and display a prejudice of women in general, would be considered misogynists. I think the traits and behaviors that are listed in the article, when joined together, would be considered misogynistic. One or two traits that are isolated, wouldn't be enough to label a guy with that title, in my opinion.

Same for misandry. When the traits are clustered together, to display an overall loathing of men in a general sense, then that would be considered misandry. there are some radical feminists who are quite vocal regarding ''incel tears.'' It's just downright mean spirited behavior towards men, and it is a bit of a head scratcher because they're calling out misogyny at every turn, when in fact, they display hatred towards men. I'll have to find and post the article about ''incel tears.''

[Syne]

Misogynists, sexists, and garden variety womanizers seem to get lumped in together. While they're likely on the same spectrum, conflating them is just lazy. Misogyny is hatred of women (probably best exemplified by the most vocal MGTOW), sexism is a prejudice for or against one gender (some MGTOW and more traditional prejudices) , and womanizing is just liking casual sex/flirting (typical bad-boy stereotype). Incels seem to be both misogynist and misandrist, regardless of their own gender.

Same goes for women. Misandrists are the most vocal feminists, sexists (female chauvinists) are probably transactional (demanding that the guy pay for the privilege...which counterpoints MGTOW complaints), and the garden variety promiscuous.

Neither Weinstein nor Cosby seem to display any hate, and unless I've missed something, not even any overt prejudice. They just used their power to feed their womanizing....often finding transactional women to accommodate them.

[Leigha]

They’re rapists, I think there’s a certain amount of hate in Cosby and Weinstein, which is why they treat women like trash. Mere womanizers with power don’t necessarily treat women like trash. The fact that Weinstein hired a woman to defend him in his trial and he calls her his “Harvey whisperer,” shows the depths of his depravity. Trump is a womanizer for example, but I don’t get the sense he’s a misogynist. (although he’s been labeled as such)

[Syne]

Are they rapists? Didn't everything they're accused of doing rely on transactional women willing to, at the very least, keep it quiet for years and decades...for personal gain (even if only a settlement)? Many womanizers ply women with lies, drinks, and drugs, and aside from women changing their tunes years after any possibility of personal benefit, that seems to be all that happened. It's like the sorority girl going to the frat party, as if she doesn't know what happens there. Weinstein's behavior was an "open secret", joked about at awards shows and accepted as the transactional price for years. Likewise, Cosby traded on his fame and promise of what he could do for transactional women.

Regret is not rape. Now, as soon as you anyone can show me actual evidence of rape (contemporary evidence like a rape kit, etc.), instead of just he said, she said, I'll happily change my opinion. But the only video of evidence of Weinstein is a video where he asks for consent every step of the way, and the woman gives it. It's definitely sexual harassment, but consenting to sexual harassment is not rape, hence the different term. And it doesn't take real evidence or any proof to convince a jury of twelve people of something. It only takes a sympathetic story contrasted against a gross guy.

But are we to assume that you would trust your own freedom to someone you hate? Someone you hate being responsible for keeping you out of jail?

Womanizers go through so many women that they likely tend to become indifferent to any particular one. Treating people as casual fun is a far cry from treating them like trash.

Of course, all this presumes that women are equal adults to men, and can be held equally responsible for their own choices.

[Leigha]

He’s on trial for allegations brought by just two women, one of whom claims he forced his way into her apartment and raped her. Rape is the term she used. That’s why we have trials so we shall see what details come out.

---

This isn't what I was thinking of but, I remember this being discussed on another forum a few years back. I guess I don't find it funny to joke about misogyny or misandry, or to act like a ''cool girl,'' joking about drinking male tears, even if it's all under the guise of sarcasm or irony. But, hey...that's just me.

Doubtful this is what the original pioneers of feminism had in mind.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/08...l-men.html

[Syne]

He’s on trial for allegations brought by just two women, one of whom claims he forced his way into her apartment and raped her. Rape is the term she used. That’s why we have trials so we shall see what details come out.

You literally said "they're rapists". Now they're just allegations. See the difference?

Reminds me of something I heard today. Democrats/leftists presume allegations are themselves evidence, as long as the target is a political opponent, like Kavanaugh. But making accusations is not demonstrating evidence. People can and do claim untrue things all the time. And almost every high profile "rape" accusation has turned out to be regret and rewriting what actually happened...or at the very least, gone unreported for so long that there's no chance for finding evidence (and you cannot morally convict without any evidence of wrongdoing).

But again, if there's actual evidence, not just he said, she said and a sympathetic jury, I'm open to having my opinion changed. But I can only form my opinion based on the available, actual evidence. I don't demonize people on claims alone, no matter how skeevy.

[Leigha]

Bill Cosby was convicted of rape/sexual assault. A jury of his peers found him guilty, so...if you disbelieve that it actually happened, that's another story. But, he was in fact, convicted. I tend to believe the woman who is coming forth with her allegations of rape against Weinstein...nonetheless..he still deserves a fair trial. Honestly, not sure he'll be able to receive a fair trial, since one would need to be living under a rock with absolutely no access to the news, internet, etc to have never heard of the Harvey Weinstein scandals. I've read that they've tossed out quite a few potential jurors already, because some have shared that they have been raped and wouldn't be able to be impartial.

I also believe that women have agency, and reluctantly having sex with a powerful man who promises you a bright future in Hollywood, isn't rape. I wish there was more discussion in the media about that end of it because it would be helpful for many women to see that saying ''no'' is often the better option, even if you lose your career. (And then of course, report the guy in a timely manner) There's just not enough talk about that piece of it, because I think there's a fear that women will interpret it as victim shaming. (which it isn't) The thing is, I've listened to a few of the stories from women who were involved with Weinstein, and they have a lot of shame and it's not a cut and dry situation. He bullied women into having sex with him in order to further their careers. Could they have said no? Sure, but he would have blacklisted them in Hollywood, and I guess he was a powerful guy for a long time, so they believed him. Again, though...what is your career worth? Is it worth auctioning your body for sex?

Just wish there was more discussion about that, because we're being led to believe that these women had absolutely no choice, but to sleep with Weinstein in exchange for a shot at stardom.

[Syne]

Bill Cosby was convicted of rape/sexual assault. A jury of his peers found him guilty, so...if you disbelieve that it actually happened, that's another story. But, he was in fact, convicted. I tend to believe the woman who is coming forth with her allegations of rape against Weinstein...nonetheless..he still deserves a fair trial. Honestly, not sure he'll be able to receive a fair trial, since one would need to be living under a rock with absolutely no access to the news, internet, etc to have never heard of the Harvey Weinstein scandals. I've read that they've tossed out quite a few potential jurors already, because some have shared that they have been raped and wouldn't be able to be impartial.

What Cosby was convicted of, according to Pennsylvania law, includes the woman being unable to resist due to drugs or other substances. Again, if the woman knowingly consented to taking the substance, knowing the likely outcome (alone with a man, at a frat party, etc.), we would have to infantilize her to pretend that she had no choice (consent) in the matter. So it's a question of if women are as capable of responsibility for their own choices as men. And again, what you can convince a jury of, especially without any evidence but he said, she said, doesn't really speak to the reality of what may or may not have happened. That's just an objective fact.

You wanting to believe women, without any actual evidence and to the ends of removing another person's freedom, may indicate sexism or personal trauma of your own.