Why is Misogyny Bad?

[Anonymous No.14689668]

Hello, /lit/. Can anyone explain to me why misogyny is bad? Being that the most of the left fundamentally believe that morality is morally relative, and people like Foucault believe most morality derives not from objectivity but from existing power structures, why is misogyny bad according to the left? Also, if people like PUAs are misogynists, why so? Don't pick up artists defer to female power by fundamentally accepting their dominant role in mate selection, and thus, appealing to their innate desires? Why isn't the power structure built on female mate selection criticized itself, rather than the people deferring to it? Are there any books which address the issue of why misogynist men do well in a de-regulated sexual environment that doesn't use the cop out of "internalized misogyny?"

[Anonymous No.14689674]

>>14689668
Who cares my man

[Anonymous No.14689682]

>>14689668
Because it affects half of all people.

[Anonymous No.14689690]

>>14689668
>people like Foucault believe most morality derives not from objectivity but from existing power structures, why is misogyny bad according to the left?
My guess would be this answers itself.
Women are rising in power, therefore curent power relations don't permit unrestricted misogyny accross the broad, it even makes it almost completely outdated, therefore misogyny is now bad. Perhaps Foucault himself would have accepted to consider that misogyny what good for a long time. He wasn't partcularly attached to any moral position as far as I can tell.

[Anonymous No.14689697]

>>14689668
bad for individual flourishing. either embrace being human or stop looking for others for how to live

[Anonymous No.14689711]

>>14689682
>>14689690

>Also, if people like PUAs are misogynists, why so? Don't pick up artists defer to female power by fundamentally accepting their dominant role in mate selection, and thus, appealing to their innate desires? Why isn't the power structure built on female mate selection criticized itself, rather than the people deferring to it?

[Anonymous No.14689714]

>>14689668
>Foucault believe most morality derives not from objectivity but from existing power structures
well, that's called sociopathy

[Anonymous No.14689740]

>>14689690
But there are no consequences for being misogynistic. Søybøys will be angry at you but what can they do? And women, well you can imagine how the women who would be upset by it look and smell so them denying their holes isn't exactly a punishment.

[Anonymous No.14689750]

>>14689740
incels are basedboys in denial

[Anonymous No.14689760]

Why isn't anyone in this thread answering any of my essential questions? Is it because it exposes feminism and "misogyny" as purely reactionary ideas, born out of a deep self-hatred women have for their desires of the same "misogynist" men they profess to hold in contempt?

[Anonymous No.14689767]

>>14689750
If you mean that basedboys are incels in denial you are absolutely correct

[Anonymous No.14689794]

>>14689750
>>14689767
The only thing that's certain is we are all in denial, but at least we are not Jews.

>>14689740
Depends where you live, you can be called out on it and lose your job I guess. Agreed that it's often unlikely.
Hot girls are definitely offended by misogyny tho, at least some of them.

[Anonymous No.14689812]

>>14689794
>Hot girls are definitely offended by misogyny
If you look ugly anything you say will cause them to be upset.
But if you are attractive they will perceive it as a form of flirting.

[Anonymous No.14689816]

>>14689812
I'll be honest anon, as an attractive boy anything I do with or say to girls or with is at least half-intended to be a form of flirting. Often without even the intention of taking things further.

[Anonymous No.14689820]

>>14689668
>Being that the most of the left fundamentally believe that morality is morally relative
Oh, so you're still at this stage.

Yeah sure they(the left) are retarded but I don't think you're viewing this question the "right" way, being right-wing does not mean necessarily an endorsement of misogyny. But one should strive only to the good higher beyond these terms anyway, at least within the modern world. So you should simply ask why misogyny is bad.

The answer to that question is that for you to have any true ethical code it cannot be promoted. In all the suffering of the world anon.

[Anonymous No.14689824]

>>14689668
The only men that aren't misogynists are those that never come into contact with women. Hence the significant overlap between incels and whiteknights.

[Anonymous No.14689825]

Because people identify with the victims of power structures instead of the beneficiaries because we are taught by society that power is bad (initially from a Christian ethic, then from a Marxist ethic, and then from a feminist ethic)

[Anonymous No.14689864]

>>14689825
>Christian ethic, then from a Marxist ethic, and then from a feminist ethic
nobody lives in this Utopia

[Anonymous No.14690182]

>>14689825
>Because people identify with the victims of power structures instead of the beneficiaries because we are taught by society that power is bad
I agree with this but would also add that people identify with the weak because they themselves feel weak and are acting within their own self-interest as represented by their morality. Some of this view of women being weak comes from the innate power dynamic instincts between men and women.

>>14689668
Your first mistake was assuming there is an underlying principle behind your average college leftists ideology other than self-interest.
>Can anyone explain to me why misogyny is bad?
by what metric? Who has decided this?

Ill generalize, there is obviously more you could go into
>female power by fundamentally accepting their dominant role in mate selection
no, generally speaking women want a man at the top of the "hierarchy" of use for her. Since women often have common uses for men a man at that point has considerable leverage over choosing women. This is further reason why women always view themselves to be weak when they "out rank" 99% of men.

You likely just feel this way from our current societal standing in which much of what men offered women is now offered collectively by the state or nearly obsolete due to technology. Add in some social trends and you have where you are now.

>Why isn't the power structure built on female mate selection criticized itself, rather than the people deferring to it?
Why don't guys complain about not getting laid? It further compounds their problem by expressing that they are viewed as bad mating potential and therefore less powerful. A "powerful" man could go get women as he pleases, infact women would come to him. Women are generally not judged sexually based on their power and so complaining for them does not have the same negative ramifications. And do I really have to go into why women do not criticize this in a way that would benefit you.

>Are there any books which address the issue of why misogynist men do well in a de-regulated sexual environment that doesn't use the cop out of "internalized misogyny?"
Not exactly sure what you mean by this. Especially the "de-regulated" part. Maybe the Origin of Species?

[Anonymous No.14690227]

>>14689668
>Can anyone explain to me why misogyny is bad?
No, because it is not.
It serves biological function.
And since life is good, anything that serves (healthy) human reproduction is good.
Women love attractive, resourceful men who do not care too much about them or their wellbeing specifically, because it's very hard for humans to live up to the kinds of expectations that comes with that kind of 'love'.
Unironically have sex, God wants beautiful ubermensch/overman-like humans to constantly be fucking and reproducing, humanity conquering the stars like a benevolent cancer.
In his own image, so to say

[Anonymous No.14690324]

>>14690227
>No, because it is not.
I would agree with this to an extend. Any man should have at least a distaste or contempt for femininity and those who embody it. But I think it is important to add that you can still care very deeply for a women or women in general while holding these views.

[Anonymous No.14690631]

>>14689668
>PUAs are misogynists
how so? if want to be more attractive to them how it's misogynist?

[Anonymous No.14690664]

>>14689864
right, despite consistently dominating intellectual spheres of the west in succession these are purely mental architectures that cannot ever be meaningfully implemented because they are anathema to the manifest reality of human being in the world. each of these is consciousness rebelling against itself.

[Anonymous No.14690681]

>>14689760
No, its because your entire argument hinges on a faulty assumption that the left has reached a consensus on the idea of moral relativism, which is inherently self-contradictory– if everyone were to believe that morality is relative, then there wouldn't be any consensus whatsoever because everyone buys into a value system which is particular to them and them alone. Everything else you've said is just pure pop-psychology fluff.

[Anonymous No.14690706]

>>14689668
This begs the question: can one be reasoned into moral beliefs?

[Anonymous No.14690805]

>>14689668
>most of the left fundamentally believe that morality is morally relative
No we don't. Marxists know that morality is based on class.

[Anonymous No.14690824]

>>14690805
>class is not a relative term
bravo

[Anonymous No.14691080]

>>14689740
you can become social pariah

[Anonymous No.14691115]

>>14689682
that is a very good point. If we take the simple notion that all life is valuable, even people inferior to us can be valuable too. As their opinions might differ and help us find novel solutions to novel problems

[Anonymous No.14691529]

You should probably read a normative ethics textbook. Try The Dimensions of Ethics: An Introduction to Ethical Theory
By Wilfrid J. Waluchow