Archives for posts with tag: Misogyny

Those who position themselves against anti-trans bigotry will often refer to the violence and discrimination toward trans-women as misogyny. It makes sense: trans-women are women, and the label we have assigned to describe the violence and discrimination perpetuated against women is misogyny. The science is sound. This hypothesis that hate against trans-woman is equivalent to traditional misogyny thus fits snugly into the already established movement of female solidarity striking against longstanding and predictable brutality, cis-women boldly holding hands with trans-women.

Except the language used against trans-women by anti-trans bigots does not align in the slightest with typical misogynistic tropes. According to misogyny, women are meek and dainty, hyper-emotional, catty, prone to irrationality, unfit for laborious or technical vocations, and naturally submissive. No one seems to be telling trans-women to get back in the kitchen, is what I’m saying. If an ideology looks nothing like misogyny, is it really appropriate to be using that term? Now, I’m not so opposed to the evolution of language that I would literally die if society adopts a new lens with which to view the tropes of misogyny, but I don’t think that’s what’s happening here. For one, misogyny in the usages that I’ve provided is still alive and well in its application toward cis-women. And two, the language used to demonize trans-women is almost always centred on their sexual predation, a trope typically used to vilify men. While this may puzzle some, given that trans-women are women, it may help us to remember that those who hold anti-trans ideas tend to see trans-women as the gender they were assigned at birth; namely, as men.

I mean, maybe I’m wrong, but to me this doesn’t look like someone portraying a trans-woman as a woman

Consider Schrodinger’s Rapist, the proposition that any unknown man approaching a woman walking down the street both is and is not a rapist until he proves himself otherwise. This has been debunked as common racism when applied to black men, but if we remove the racial modifier to leave him only as a non-descript male, the assertion still applies a prejudicial view against a particular group of people. This same fear is being applied to trans-women. Let’s look at the clarifying example provided by my link from earlier in this paragraph:

In this Russian roulette scenario, you, Reader Who Would Never Rape Anyone, are an empty bullet chamber. But not all of the chambers are empty, and on a given turn, the people playing the game have no idea whether the chamber that’s lined up to fire is you or one with a bullet in it. Until the gun is fired, Schrodinger’s Bullet. This is analogous to the type of situation Schrodinger’s Rapist is describing.

You see, men, or in this case trans-women, are like a gun. While most men and trans-women may be empty chambers, to play Russian Roulette would be pointlessly deadly. This is why we need to ban trans-women from “women only” spaces: because any penis is a murderous weapon, and appropriate caution must be used whenever a cock is in play. We’re simply being prudent because men aren’t human beings, they are instruments of death! This is the position put forward by someone advocating why Schrodinger’s Rapist isn’t misandrist, keep in mind. Perhaps there will be the argument that trans-women, being women, are excluded from the generalization, forgetting that again, anti-trans bigots don’t see it that way. In fact, this amplifies the misandry because these “biological men” are seeking access to feminine spaces; their desire sustains the predatory conviction and “proves” the generalization: that men will stoop to any level in order to get their rape on, even if it means “pretending” to be a woman.

They’re onto us!!

While this radical feminism may be trans-exclusionary, it still utilizes the same fear-based prejudices. In fact, to be critical of women protecting the sacred spaces of other women from the murder penis is actually the real anti-feminist misogyny, equivalent to that of Andrew Tate, according to an opinion piece in the mainstream newspaper, The Guardian. This air of progressivism gives a woke legitimacy to what would otherwise be a simple policing of gender roles, allowing an unholy alliances between progressive feminists on the left and the religious right.

Bigotry against trans-women also plays into the misandry from the right that clutches its pearls in fear of the deviancy of male sexuality which, as discussed, is already in dubious repute. In this instance, it’s less about the predation of masculine heterosexuality, and more the dirty licentiousness of the queers. When a man strays from his role assigned by God or whatever, sin begins to unfold. This safeguarding of the proper way to be a man is strict: from not being able to wear a dress despite the commonplace nature of women in pants, to needing to tan your balls in order to have the appropriate amount of testosterone lest your masculinity slip. This policing of masculinity is an easy accomplice to the policing of men, and trans-women bear the brunt of both, their deviancy on full display.

In their defense, that is macho as fuck.

So, is it purely misandry that drives anti-trans bigotry? Of course not. Bigotry exists against trans people regardless of their assigned gender at birth, and for some, misandry barely enters into it. It is worth noting that morality is essentially driven by certain types of emotions, so anger drives our desire for justice, indignation our need for fairness, and so on. In this instance, disgust creates our moral desire for purity. Given this motivation, a lot of anti-trans bigotry comes from people just thinking that being transgender is gross, and the bigoted stories of misandry and gender policing are post-hoc justifications to provide some kind of rationale as to why those feelings of disgust ought to be taken seriously on a societal scale.

Anti-trans bigotry does not need misandry, but you have to wonder why you never hear stories about trans-men invading the men’s room, or trans-men in sports. The social unimportance of female sexuality and the pushback of mainstream feminism against overt policing of women’s gender roles creates a seeming apathy toward trans-men in this desert of coverage, yet somehow hating trans-women generates clicks – and it’s not being driven by misogyny! I do not believe that anti-trans bigotry would disappear if misandry was eliminated from our social discourse, but I do believe the bigots would have one fewer excuse if cis-men were allowed to wear a summer frock on a warm, breezy day without judgement or consequence, of if their heterosexual desire for women was not pathologized as intrinsically violent.

There’s a lot of accusations flying around about certain groups, individuals, and local white male terrorists saying that they are misogynist. It’s a fair claim. A lot of their actions possess underlying, or even blatantly overt, violence directed towards female humans. Misogyny is the hatred of women, but do these men actually hate women? From the common progressive standpoint, obviously, and to question that canon is essentially to turn in your progressive credentials. However, claiming the alt-right, the incels, the white supremacists, and the Jordan Petersons hate women is kinda like saying terrorists hate our freedom. It’s painting the antagonist with purposefully broad strokes to make the Manichean dichotomy easier to propagandize.


All this could be solved if our glorious leader and their wicked despot had a cage match on Pay Per View.

Simone de Beauvoir wrote that women struggle to rebel against men because they are dispersed throughout every category; blacks, whites, rich, poor, and so on; all of them have women. Women cannot simply cleave themselves from their biological counterpart, and even though whites and blacks could eliminate one another, Jews could eliminate every last gentile and vice versa (as has been attempted), women cannot get rid of men. This makes rebellion against male dominance much more complicated. While de Beauvoir was writing about the predicament of being woman, the same holds true for men. Man cannot wholly rebel against women. Hatred that longs for catastrophic destruction of the thing hated is a non-starter. Misogyny in its purest sense is just implausible.

Elliot Rodger, the champion of misogyny, killed a whole mess of people because women collectively decided not to have sex with him. Is it fair to say he hated women when Rodger clearly desired them? A love/hate relationship could be argued, but I think that is far too simplistic. Rodger believed that women should have sex with him. They did not, which means that women were not fulfilling their role as sex-havers. It was this dereliction of duty that drove him towards violence.

Let’s look at another example. The Jordan Peterson clip I hyperlinked earlier shows Peterson describing why women cannot participate in rational discourse: men can’t be physically abusive toward women because of social norms, and violence is the only thing that keeps discourse rational between men, therefore women can say the craziest shit in the world, and men can’t rough them up for being so dumb. This creates feminism, I guess. This is stupid for many reasons, the most glaring being that it ignores the fact that men commit violence against women all the God damn time, but what makes it allegedly misogynistic is that it conceives of “woman” in a specific way. “Woman” is not rational, “woman” relies on notions of chivalry for her own benefit, chivalry is a thing, etc. Now I doubt that Jordan Peterson hates women, he makes sure to mention that he married one after all, but it’s clear that his beliefs about women have something wrong with them.


Women! Amirite?? If men could just somehow commit violence against them, then none of this would ever have happened!

What’s the link between Elliot Rodger and Jordan Peterson? They both define “woman” as something that women as people cannot be. Women are autonomous, freely-choosing human beings. “Woman” is not irrational, nor is she a sex-haver, in the way an inkwell is an inkwell. Peterson and Rodger categorize women in such a way that eliminates her humanity. Certainly women can be irrational; they can also have sex. The problem is that defining women in such a way limits their freedom, and when you demand they act in a certain way that they naturally cannot adhere to 100% of the time, you’re bound to be disappointed (especially during an age when a lot of women have been empowered enough to not give a shit about what you think).

What we’re calling the hatred of women is the enforcement, through words or deeds, of an anachronistic (if not outright fictional) idea of “woman.” If some woman decided to have sex with Elliot Rodger, he likely would have been fine with her (up until she stopped). If a woman agreed with Jordan Peterson, he’d think she was a-okay. Conform to these ideas, and the hatred disappears. It’s not hateful attitudes that is driving these men, but the idea of what a woman should and should not be. Were Elliot Rodger to say, “I want to have sex with a woman,” what he means when he says “woman” and what someone else might hear are two totally separate notions.The problem isn’t hatred; the problem is that these ideas of what is “woman” are wrong.

THE STEPFORD WIVES, Toni Reid, Carole Mallory, Tina Louise, Katherine Ross, Paula Prentiss, Barbara

Women are biologically determined to conform to their social role

If you believe that women should be or perform Y, and you don’t have any problems with women who are and do Y, you will never self identify as someone who hates women. You’ll just be wrong, and if you act on your wrong beliefs to shame, abuse, or kill women who do not fit into this fantastical mould that you’ve created in your mind, then you are raging against human beings for being human.

And you need to stop.