Misogyny Alert!

I tried to comment last night, but it didn't take, so I responded at my blog. Click my name if you're interested.

I'm going to disagree with Jill, it's demeaning to women using the body of a Barbie Doll to try to portray that attractive "barbie like" women can't do math because they are stupid.

It could be considered misogyny based on the context of how it was used. Realistically you could argue that pictures like that are just as harmful as the one that TNR posted, since it implies if you are attractive you have to be stupid.

Yet it was posted by a woman, which would then lead to the topic of from a definition standpoint is it the right choice of a word?

Bottom line? Confusing since there is no real defintion of misogyny when it comes to most of this.

Eric in #3: You seem to want to make identifying misogyny as being as easy as telling the difference between black and white, but it's much closer to going into a paint store and not believing that there can be 25 shades of what otherwise looks like white, but isn't.

I raised the thing about the profit as a distinction - I didn't say it was the deciding factor and I would never say something singular like that - come on.

What is it you are grasping for? Are you unsure of whether you know it when you see it, are you just trying to cage me by some boundaries you want to pluck from what I've written? What?

Come on - we're discussing - jockeying over what our experiences cause us to see as misogyny or not. But we don't share all the same experiences - so our definition isn't going to be the same, esp. when it comes to something like this.

If you're asking because you really want to "get" why I find the TNR cover to be hatred of women, well - meet me in Columbus over the weekend of June 6-8 when I'm in town for the Go Run! training. :)

sigh and laugh Joseph - thanks

I personally believe... that U.S. Americans... are sexist because they have contests like Miss Teen USA.

Haven't looked at the TNR thing close up, so can't really comment on it. Work has been mentally exhausting enough lately that I rarely feel like writing much at the end of the day. Occasionally there is some little nugget that will come together almost without effort--usually a response to something I've read. And sometimes what occurs to me will be an image.

I was thinking yesterday about how much I don't identify with Hillary or consider her to be a good role model or someone worthy of my "gender loyalty". Or whatever it's called. Anyway, it occurred to me that I wanted to Photoshop that image. Partly, I guess, because I never liked Barbie as a "role model", and the "Teen Talk" version that briefly uttered the words "math is hard" was kind of the epitome of that.

I thought I was going to write something about that, but by the time I got home, I realized that just wasn't going to happen.

Sorry. Got distracted. What I meant by interesting is this:

Are you now setting a profit motive standard for misogyny? If one doesn't stand to make money off of it, then it can't be misogyny?

Also, I don't understand what this means: "the TNR cover blurred the lines in such a way to suggest that it was all real and likely and possible and threatening."

Glad we've established there can be sexism without misogyny. However, I don't think the standard should be "showing a woman saying something that might make people think she's dumb". That seems to me...um...dumb! So if I put up the video of Miss Teen USA 2007, that'd be sexist? It certainly does show a woman saying something that might make people think she's dumb!

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lj3iNxZ8Dww&hl=en&rel=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lj3iNxZ8Dww&hl=en&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Interesting...

How about neither? It's an actual caricature - no one would mistake if for being real - whereas the TNR cover blurred the lines in such a way to suggest that it was all real and likely and possible and threatening. Showing a woman saying something that might make people think she's dumb is sexist - but it's not showing hatred of women. To me anyway. From a clinical perspective, I imagine some people might argue that such sexist portrayals do indicate deep-seated hatred. Given the context, I'm not getting that. Renee also doesn't have the profit motive TNR does to incite people. (Do you Renee!? Now that would be cool - can you imagine blogs making that kind of money for being inciteful!?)