Introduction
\nIn the introduction of her novel Down Girl, Kate Manne breaks down the current \u201cNaive Concept of Misogyny\u201d\u2013using fascinating case studies and illustrative examples\u2013to effectively rebuild her own \u201cAmeliorative Feminist Conception of Misogyny.\u201d Through sections that she entitles \u201cSmothering,\u201d \u201cSilence,\u201d \u201cVocal Changes,\u201d \u201cAims,\u201d and \u201cNonappearance,\u201d Manne articulates those outlets through which misogyny manifests itself. The \u201cfunction of misogyny,\u201d as she puts it, is \u201cto enforce and police women\u2019s subordination and to uphold male dominance: …[Misogyny] takes a girl or woman belonging to a social class\u2026 [and] threatens hostile consequences if she violates or challenges the relevant norms or expectations as a member of this gendered class of persons\u201d (Manne, 19-20). <\/p>\n
But Manne further gauges the concept of misogyny we have today\u2013called the \u201cNaive Concept of Misogyny\u2013as something very different to what she believes misogyny actually is and should mean. The Naive Conception of Misogyny describes \u201cmen who are prone to feel hatred toward women simply because they are women\u2013a misogynist\u2019s attitudes are held to be caused or triggered merely by his representing people as women and no further basis specific to his targets\u201d (32-33). According to Manne, however, the Naive Conception is inaccurate because \u201cmisogyny ought to be understood as the system that cooperates within a patriarchal social order to police and enforce women\u2019s subordination and to uphold male dominance\u201d (33). As a result, Manne provides an alternative concept of misogyny that she calls the \u201cAmeliorative Feminist Conception of Misogyny,\u201d in which misogyny is described as \u201ca property of social systems or environments as a whole, in which women will tend to face hostility of various kinds because they are women in a man\u2019s world, (i.e., patriarchy), who are held to be failing to live up to patriarchal standards (i.e., tenets of patriarchal ideology that have some purchase in this environment)\u201d (33). It is with this concept that Manne aims to demonstrate misogyny\u2019s existence, in large part, as a political phenomenon. <\/p>\n
Questions
\nIn her introduction, Manne uses several sections entitled \u201cSmothering,\u201d \u201cSilence,\u201d \u201cVocal Changes,\u201d \u201cAims,\u201d and \u201cNonappearance\u201d to highlight common aspects of misogyny in the ways it manifests itself. What are our reactions to these examples? Do you believe that Manne is missing some additional aspects of misogyny\u2026 possibly on a more minor scale? If so, what? Do we see the Ameliorative Conception of Misogyny at play in these aspects to be more fitting than the Naive Conception?<\/p>\n
Manne differentiates between Misogyny and Sexism: \u201cSexism is the branch of patriarchal ideology that justifies and rationalizes a patriarchal social order, and misogyny, as the system that polices and enforces its governing norms and expectations. So sexism is scientific; misogyny is moralistic. And patriarchal order has a hegemonic quality\u201d (20). Do you see her point at play? Can you think of any counter-examples or differentiating philosophical conclusions to the relationship between sexism and misogyny? How, perhaps, does pop culture influence the perception of sexism to intensify misogyny?<\/p>\n
Manne uses the differentiating conclusions of media networks on the Isla Vista shooting to argue that society (most often than not) believes the Naive Conception of Misogyny: \u201cmen who are prone to feel hatred toward women simply because they are women\u2013a misogynist\u2019s attitudes are held to be caused or triggered merely by his representing people as women and no further basis specific to his targets\u201d (32-33). She then lists her concerns about this concept, two of which are that it does not focus on the victims of misogyny (girls and women) nearly as much as it should, and that it \u201cwould effectively define misogyny out of prevalence within a patriarchal order, which [she] takes it to be the setting in which it should be (most) naturally occurring\u201d (45). What do we think about her description of the Naive Conception of Misogyny and its function? Do we also have her concerns? Do we have more concerns? How have we seen applications of the Naive Conception of Misogyny in the world?… and have we, ourselves, been prone to this conception?<\/p>\n
Manne answers her concerns about the Naive Conception of Misogyny by drafting her own Ameliorative Conception of Misogyny: \u201ca property of social systems or environments as a whole, in which women will tend to face hostility of various kinds because they are women in a man\u2019s world, (i.e., patriarchy), who are held to be failing to live up to patriarchal standards (i.e., tenets of patriarchal ideology that have some purchase in this environment)\u201d (33). With this conception, she aims to perceive its existence as a political phenomenon. What do we think about this concept? Putting AFCM and its examples in dialogue with the Naive Conception, does it fully address her concerns about the Naive Conception? Would we add\/remove anything from this conception? <\/p>\n
The Naive Conception of Misogyny describes men as \u201cwomen-haters.\u201d According to Manne\u2019s Ameliorative Conception of Misogyny, the patriarchy condemns women who do not act in line with their \u201croles\u201d as \u201cloving wives, devoted moms, loyal secretaries, etc.\u201d (47). Manne uses these two premises to ask \u201cwhen it comes to the women who are not only dutifully but lovingly catering to his desires, what\u2019s to hate, exactly?\u201d (47). What do we think about this argument? Do we think that the patriarchy described in the Ameliorative Feminist Conception creates men like the Isla Vista shooter? Or are men like Rodger just inherent misogynists as described by the Naive Conception? Do we see the cases from Manne\u2019s Introduction at play here?<\/p>\n
Manne says that the term \u201cmisogyny is both a word we need as feminists and a word we are in danger of losing\u2026\u201d As a result, her book is \u201cintended as a bulwark against gaslighting in this arena\u201d (12). Do you think she is correct that the current Naive Conception causes us to lose our grasp on the word? Do you think her Ameliorative Feminist Conception would tighten that grasp?<\/p>\n
Manne argues that the \u201cwomen-hating\u201d that results from the Naive Conception is incorrect and, instead, a result of the patriarchy instilled within her Ameliorative Conception of Misogyny. What do we think about this argument when applied to the Isla Vista shooter, incels, and other violent crimes made on the basis of \u201chating women?\u201d <\/p>\n
Today, Feminism is often falsely attributed as \u201cman-hating.\u201d After Manne\u2019s Introduction and Chapter 1, how would we challenge this argument using her philosophy?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Introduction In the introduction of her novel Down Girl, Kate Manne breaks down the current \u201cNaive Concept of Misogyny\u201d\u2013using fascinating case studies and illustrative examples\u2013to effectively rebuild her…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":275,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-276","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-questions"],"splot_meta":{"author":"Katherine Finch","license":"","source":"https:\/\/giphy.com"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gallegft.sites.wfu.edu\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/276"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gallegft.sites.wfu.edu\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gallegft.sites.wfu.edu\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gallegft.sites.wfu.edu\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gallegft.sites.wfu.edu\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=276"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/gallegft.sites.wfu.edu\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/276\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":677,"href":"https:\/\/gallegft.sites.wfu.edu\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/276\/revisions\/677"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gallegft.sites.wfu.edu\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/275"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gallegft.sites.wfu.edu\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=276"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gallegft.sites.wfu.edu\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=276"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gallegft.sites.wfu.edu\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=276"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}