Sexism and misogyny: what's the difference? by Naomi Wolf, Julie Bindel, Nina Power, Rahila Gupta, Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett, Bidisha

An Australian dictionary has changed its definition of misogyny to reflect the fact that it is now used to mean 'entrenched prejudice against women', not just hatred of them. Six feminists tell us what the term means to them

Naomi Wolf: Julia Gillard used the word accurately

I object to more heightened words being appropriated carelessly to make political points: sexism is not in fact misogyny; someone can like women quite a lot in person but be very happy to support systematic discrimination against them (sexism) or to use gender stereotypes against them (sexism). So I am sorry to see the dictionary conflating the terms. Sexism is to misogyny what antisemitism is to Jew-hating. Neither is ever acceptable, but we need precise language to understand and fight injustice effectively.
Having said that, Julia Gillard used "misogyny' perfectly accurately. She said that Tony Abbott described abortion as "the easy way out" and cited his political campaign against Gillard involving posters asking voters to "ditch the witch". The latter, especially, is a time-honoured tradition of true misogyny – stirring up atavistic hatred of the feminine – that goes back to witch-hunts against powerful women in the New World. Her critics, for their part, are asking us to water down our awareness of real woman-hating and accept it as normal in political discourse.
"Misogyny" often surfaces in political struggles over women's role, and you can tell because the control of women becomes personalised, intrusive and often sexualised. Misogyny has the amygdala involved – the part of the brain involved in processing emotional responses – there is contempt and violence in it. A public figure who tolerates the systemic under-prosecuting of rape is guilty of serious and unforgivable sexism; making rape jokes or explaining away the damage of rape in public as Congressman Todd Akin did recently in the US, or legislating, as over a dozen US states are now doing, transvaginal probes that are medically unnecessary, simply to sexually punish women for choosing abortion – well, that is misogyny.

Julie Bindel: Sexists are not always misogynists

When a man claims that women are naturally maternal, or are by default, bad drivers, he is a sexist. If he was to add that women are only good for a fuck and should be confined to servicing men and their children, it is misogyny. Misogynists are always sexist, but sexists are not always misogynists. For example, if a man says of a woman, "Look at the state of that fat, ugly cow, I wouldn't touch her with yours," then he is a misogynist. It would follow that he does not respect women as equals and is therefore also a sexist.

Nina Power: Being misogynist, acting sexist

In a moment of idle curiosity a good few years ago, I wondered whether there was an antonym for misogyny. I presumed it would be something like "philogyny" and it was indeed – "fondness towards women". After the definition, a short note in parenthesis: "usage: rare" (and today, too, the spellchecker has red-underlined the word. Apparently liking women has not become any more popular in the computer age!) What a depressing dictionary note, I thought: we talk about misogyny all the time, and yet the opposite is nowhere to be found.
Misogyny, and philogyny for that matter, seems to imply an essential state of being, perhaps an inability to change an outlook, a claim about what that person is. Sexism, on the other hand, is perhaps more often linked to acts and words – "so this person wrote this tweet that was sexist, but it doesn't mean he hates women", that sort of thing. The interchangeable use of the terms may be in keeping with contemporary usage, but we might want to make a quiet plea to hold open the distinction, if only so the antonym for "hating women" might one day usurp its partner in popularity.

Rahila Gupta: A murky pond in which misogyny flourishes

We all know that sexism is the pond in which misogyny flourishes and because the water is so murky, you sometimes don't even notice how healthily it grows. And because it is growing in water, it sometimes reflects back at you as love instead of hate. To be specific, sexism is when men let you jump the queue and get on a crowded bus first in Delhi (to confuse matters further, that's called chivalry) and then the poor dears, willy nilly, get crushed up against you as their hands "accidentally" cup your breasts in a frenzy of misogyny.

Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett: Something darker and angrier

Sexism is to misogyny what Benny Hill is to Rush Limbaugh. While sexism demonstrates a disregard and disrespect for women, I always have associated misogyny with something darker, angrier, and more cynical. Things like Page 3 often betray a failure to move with the times, a certain outdated attitude about women's roles that has the potential to be modernised. But educating someone out of the blinkered hatred of misogyny is a monumental challenge. To think, as the Republicans do, that the male half of society should be able to legislate and control the bodies of the female half, well, that can be nothing but misogyny.

Bidisha: Two sexist remarks and one misogynist one

At a major literary festival, before an event about military fiction, a posh famous English author smirked to me, "What's the difference between a woman and a piece of toast? You can make soldiers from toast." That's sexist.
When boarding a flight from Geneva to London a man followed his wife on to the plane and said at the top of his voice to her, "The plane went down when you got on it," which prompted gasps from everyone around including the cabin staff, while he smirked and the woman looked like she wanted to drop in to a hole in the ground and die. That's sexist.
On a train from York to London a woman was talking on the phone in the quiet carriage. A couple near me got cross. "I'll go and tell her it's the quiet carriage," said the man to us all nearby. "Ooh, don't," muttered the wife. "OK then, I'll go and punch her," he said. That's misogynist.

here's the really radical news: patriarchy is dead. It's dead simplistic, dead inaccurate, and no longer a useful way of framing gender inequality in the UK

 

| Nichi Hodgson | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

From reclaiming the F word to objecting to objectification – there's a new feminist army determined to finally flatten the patriarchy. But here's the really radical news: patriarchy is dead. It's dead simplistic, dead inaccurate, and no longer a useful way of framing gender inequality in the UK. Forget about castrating patriarchy – it's time to corral kyriarchy, the system identified by Harvard theologian Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, which explains how ethnicity, class, economics and education, as well as gender, intersect to oppress us all, men as well as women.

So, kyriarchy: the substitution of one elitist, etymological hair-splitting term for another, I hear my newly estranged sisters cry – just what feminism needs. But this is a neologism with a difference. Where patriarchy – literally, rule of the father – explains only how traditional male authority dictates to, and subjugates women, kyriarchy (from the Greek: kyrios – lord/master; archion – dominion/rule) relates how each of us, whatever our gender, is a bundle of privileges we can all too readily abuse by invoking the "master power", whether that's as a black female barrister, a mixed-race trans male teacher, or a white immigrant male labourer. At the same time, the term's connotations of elite authority perfectly tap into the legacy of oppression that western feminists, from Mary Wollstonecraft to Germaine Greer, have dedicatedly derided.

Scoff at my linguistic parsing, but terminology matters. Just as contemporary feminism is so keen to detox the term "feminist", so "patriarchy" carries a whole truckload of outdated assumptions about male-perpetuated oppression that blinker us all. Take porn for example. Patriarchy just isn't useful when we want to talk about how its proliferation is negatively impacting on men and women alike. Kyriarchy, by contrast, accounts for the increasing numbers of men who are suffering from sexual performance anxiety or emotional disconnection with women, which can be related to x-rated overconsumption, and how female performers, who can make good money out of being the object of both male and female desire and envy, can argue they are somewhat empowered by doing so. This isn't to claim porn stars as emancipated feminist role models; it's just to recognise that sexual allure and money, rightly or wrongly, accord power that oppresses too.

Kyriarchy links the latest feminist wave to decades of activism, while better framing today's more subtle oppressions. It helps us to recognise the interconnection of education, class and eating disorders such as anorexia, and of domestic violence and poverty, rather than encouraging us to indiscriminately blame men. It contextualises the contempt of working-class male unionists towards Margaret Thatcher. It helps to explain how women themselves can in some cases morph into the supremacist bully, when paranoid mothers pass on anxieties about food and bodies to their daughters, ground down themselves by years of trying to live up to constructed notions of beauty.

Perhaps most importantly, kyriarchy exposes a sin within the women's movement itself: that of feminist-perpetuated oppression. (I can already hear feminists hissing at me as I type. But don't worry – I'll hiss at myself in the mirror later for perpetuating the stereotype of internecine cat-fighting.) When feminist commentators and charities working to "liberate" sex workers relate their tales for them, rather than letting them speak first-hand, that's kyriarchy. It's also kyriarchy when minority male feminists are forced to veto voting rights in equality action groups because they are male.

Kyriarchy has the potential to settle the age-old argument about "privileged" feminism once and for all. Perhaps that's why it's so frightening to those that balk at the term, and will dismiss this as yet another example of woman-eating-woman. It may feel counterintuitive, but recognising your own privilege doesn't make the struggle for gender equality any less credible: it makes it more so, by allowing feminists to see that advantages – such as being born to a semi-prosperous family or being well-educated – don't necessarily protect against, say, rape.

Whatever British feminism has achieved, it has never managed to fully convince men to get their march on. At least kyriarchy, with its emphasis on individual liberation and social equality, gives guys a chance to whinge about how they're oppressed too. And not just by the feminists.

 

 

via ScribeFire

here's the really radical news: patriarchy is dead. It's dead simplistic, dead inaccurate, and no longer a useful way of framing gender inequality in the UK

 

| Nichi Hodgson | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

From reclaiming the F word to objecting to objectification – there's a new feminist army determined to finally flatten the patriarchy. But here's the really radical news: patriarchy is dead. It's dead simplistic, dead inaccurate, and no longer a useful way of framing gender inequality in the UK. Forget about castrating patriarchy – it's time to corral kyriarchy, the system identified by Harvard theologian Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, which explains how ethnicity, class, economics and education, as well as gender, intersect to oppress us all, men as well as women.

So, kyriarchy: the substitution of one elitist, etymological hair-splitting term for another, I hear my newly estranged sisters cry – just what feminism needs. But this is a neologism with a difference. Where patriarchy – literally, rule of the father – explains only how traditional male authority dictates to, and subjugates women, kyriarchy (from the Greek: kyrios – lord/master; archion – dominion/rule) relates how each of us, whatever our gender, is a bundle of privileges we can all too readily abuse by invoking the "master power", whether that's as a black female barrister, a mixed-race trans male teacher, or a white immigrant male labourer. At the same time, the term's connotations of elite authority perfectly tap into the legacy of oppression that western feminists, from Mary Wollstonecraft to Germaine Greer, have dedicatedly derided.

Scoff at my linguistic parsing, but terminology matters. Just as contemporary feminism is so keen to detox the term "feminist", so "patriarchy" carries a whole truckload of outdated assumptions about male-perpetuated oppression that blinker us all. Take porn for example. Patriarchy just isn't useful when we want to talk about how its proliferation is negatively impacting on men and women alike. Kyriarchy, by contrast, accounts for the increasing numbers of men who are suffering from sexual performance anxiety or emotional disconnection with women, which can be related to x-rated overconsumption, and how female performers, who can make good money out of being the object of both male and female desire and envy, can argue they are somewhat empowered by doing so. This isn't to claim porn stars as emancipated feminist role models; it's just to recognise that sexual allure and money, rightly or wrongly, accord power that oppresses too.

Kyriarchy links the latest feminist wave to decades of activism, while better framing today's more subtle oppressions. It helps us to recognise the interconnection of education, class and eating disorders such as anorexia, and of domestic violence and poverty, rather than encouraging us to indiscriminately blame men. It contextualises the contempt of working-class male unionists towards Margaret Thatcher. It helps to explain how women themselves can in some cases morph into the supremacist bully, when paranoid mothers pass on anxieties about food and bodies to their daughters, ground down themselves by years of trying to live up to constructed notions of beauty.

Perhaps most importantly, kyriarchy exposes a sin within the women's movement itself: that of feminist-perpetuated oppression. (I can already hear feminists hissing at me as I type. But don't worry – I'll hiss at myself in the mirror later for perpetuating the stereotype of internecine cat-fighting.) When feminist commentators and charities working to "liberate" sex workers relate their tales for them, rather than letting them speak first-hand, that's kyriarchy. It's also kyriarchy when minority male feminists are forced to veto voting rights in equality action groups because they are male.

Kyriarchy has the potential to settle the age-old argument about "privileged" feminism once and for all. Perhaps that's why it's so frightening to those that balk at the term, and will dismiss this as yet another example of woman-eating-woman. It may feel counterintuitive, but recognising your own privilege doesn't make the struggle for gender equality any less credible: it makes it more so, by allowing feminists to see that advantages – such as being born to a semi-prosperous family or being well-educated – don't necessarily protect against, say, rape.

Whatever British feminism has achieved, it has never managed to fully convince men to get their march on. At least kyriarchy, with its emphasis on individual liberation and social equality, gives guys a chance to whinge about how they're oppressed too. And not just by the feminists.

 

 

via ScribeFire