If You’re a Misanthrope, are You a Misogynist?

[polly7]

by Peter Breschard / April 27th, 2016

Let’s get some terms straightened out. If you’re a misanthrope, you pretty much hate humanity in general. Women, children, men, you despise them all. You can still hate everyone and have exceptions for your own family and puppy dog, but you’re probably more than willing to press the button and vaporize millions. Frankly, you don’t give a shit about anyone other than you and your own.

What’s a misogynist? Misogyny is a sub-category of misanthropy but focuses its hatred on women. In other words, if you’re a misanthrope, you’re pretty much a misogynist as well. But if you’re a misogynist, you are not necessarily a misanthrope. (Even if you probably are, but that’s another matter.)

War should be considered the ultimate manifestation of misanthropy. Those who facilitate the mass exterminations of human beings which constitute modern day warfare must be considered to be at the pinnacle of human hatred. War is as misanthropic as it gets.

If you assist in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of women should you be considered a misogynist? After all, if you’re a young woman lying dead in a ditch, being pro-choice is hardly relevant. If a drone fires a rocket into your house, you don’t care if the ceiling is wood or glass as it collapses and kills you and your children. You don’t care if you have equal opportunity for a job when your village has been brought to rubble by foreign military forces.....

Full article: http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/04/if-youre-a-misanthrope-are-you-a-misogynist/

[Buzz Clik]

1. What's the take home message for us, polly? Are you suggesting misogyny doesn't exist?

I know you didn't write the article, but you posted it here for a reason. What's the point?

[polly7]

2. I'm honestly surprised you're unable to grasp 'the point'.

War affects women and children in horrific ways - not only by direct injury or death, but by poverty d/t losing husbands, sons, fathers - by setting back rights - the right for education, employment, freedom of dress, the ability to walk out the door without being kidnapped and raped/tortured, married off as children, not live as refugees in squalid conditions, and on and on and on - that they've fought for with their lives as they're left under the new rule of fanatics and freaks who see women's rights as atrocities.

The point is - all these military 'interventions' completely, 100% disregard the rights of these women to live in even some kind of dignity and peace - they are the known recipients of long-term and horrific suffering. THAT is misogyny. That any person claiming to be 'feminist' defends this would be laughable if not for the truth of how much these women and children pay.

[Buzz Clik]

4. thank you. That was truly enlightening.

Sorry for being dense.

[polly7]

5. No worries, but are you being snarky? nt.

[Buzz Clik]

6. Nope. I promise.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. I got the point a long time ago when...

I saw "Two Women". A movie can be worth far more than a thousand words.

http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=EE05E7DF173FE177BC4153DFB366838A679EDE

[polly7]

8. Oh wow. Thank you so much.

I'm going to hunt this down to watch, the review reads as absolutely heartbreaking.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. It is. I still tear up a little remembering it.

[Chan790]

11. No...I think the point is...

and I concede that I could be wrong about this...is that you're by definition a misogynist and can't be a feminist if you're a hawkish supporter of military action, such as a former Sec. of State and current Democratic Presidential candidate.

Not saying I agree or not, but I think that's what the author of the article is getting at.

[felix_numinous]

3. Good point

Yes the politicization of misogyny and victimhood convinces many who have been actual victims, that they have a champion.

[My Good Babushka]

10. Yes, every war

is a war on women.