Hey Everybody, Marcus here.
If you navigate to Dictionary dot com and look up the definition of human, you will find two separate entries where the word human is used as a noun. The two definitions read as follows:
1. any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2. a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species
When I look at these two definitions I find that neither of them answers the question: “What is a human being?” We are often tempted to reach to the dictionary to define things that exist but what we are in fact greeted with are definitions of words instead. There is a very important distinction that needs to be observed here that is not immediately evident.
Let us ask ourselves this. Why does the word human exist at all? Surely, we can answer this question by saying that the word human exists because there is a thing that ontologically obtains prior and independent of the word. In turn, the existence of this thing necessitates the introduction of a word that can be used to engage in discourse around it.
So, if we are to accept this account for the existence of the word human, then we must conclude that the subject of inquiry is the thing which ontologically obtains and not the word human itself. What this means is that the dictionary definition of the word human should never serve as the subject of inquiry but the subject ought to be that which the word corresponds to. This should be obvious to anyone yet it seems it is not.
Often times, people get caught up in dictionary definitions of words. They conflate the dictionary definition of a word as that which defines the object the word corresponds to. Let us take a simple example well known to us in the MGTOW community. Feminists have been known to say things like “Feminism is the pursuit of social, political, and economic equality between the sexes. That’s what it is. Just look it up in the dictionary.” These sorts of statements have been commonly acknowledged as the dictionary fallacy to anti-feminists.
Indeed, if feminism is the pursuit of social, political, and economic equality between the sexes, then feminism does not ontologically obtain. Simply put, feminism does not exist. Yet we do say that feminism exists; at least, something ontologically obtains which we refer to as feminism that seems to us to have an essence radically difference from what we read in the dictionary. So in this way, anti-feminist discourse has as its subject of inquiry not the word feminism, or the account given in the dictionary, but that which ontologically obtains.
The same can be said of the dictionary definition of human. The dictionary definition is a bad definition of a human. The reason for this is much the same as why the definition of feminism is inadequate. The dictionary is not a set of definitions of essences but merely a collection of definitions that are either commonly understood when a word is used or definitions informed by ideology, historical revisionism, or what not.
The reason I bring this up is because you often see people reach to dictionary definitions of words as the subject of their inquiry. Someone will take a word like feminism, look it up in the dictionary, and then begin to conduct an exegetical analysis on the dictionary definition to derive further conclusions about feminism. To do this is to engage in sophistry.
To do this is to make words the subject of the inquiry as oppose to that which actually exists and whose existence is prior to the word. The proper subject of any inquiry is that with ontologically obtains; the words are merely a tool, and nothing more. The proper subject of inquiry is the essence of the thing under inquiry.
In this way, if we are to revisit the definition of a human being, then a proper definition of the essence of a human being would be what Aristotle put forward; namely, a human being is a rational animal.
Though the first entry in the dictionary definition of human being, namely, “any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens” is true, it is not the essence of a human being. Though the second entry in the dictionary definition of human being, namely, “a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species” is true, it also is not the essence of a human being. No, the essence of a human being, the essence of that which ontologically obtains, is to be a rational animal.
With all this said, let us shift our focus to the word misogyny. The dictionary dot com definition for misogyny has a single entry. It says misogyny is: “hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, or prejudice against women.” Indeed, that may very well be the definition of the word misogyny, but we are not interested in words. We are interested in the essences of things that ontologically obtain as the real subject of our inquiry.
So, let us conduct an inquiry into the essence of misogyny and see if the outcome of our inquiry comes anywhere near the dictionary definition of misogyny.
A person can perform a multitude of actions. Is opening a letter one received in the mail an action? Indeed, it is. Can it be said that opening a letter one received in the mail is a misogynistic action? No, this cannot be said. Therefore, it follows that at least some actions are not misogynistic.
So, either it is the case that no actions are misogynistic, or that only some actions are misogynistic. Is it said that there are actions which are considered misogynistic? Indeed, this is said and very often reaffirmed in by media, feminists, and so on. From this it follows that it is not the case that no actions are misogynistic but that some actions are misogynistic while some actions are not misogynistic.
Now we must inquire into what are the differences between misogynistic actions and not misogynistic actions. Let us imagine a world in which women did not exist. In such a world, can it be said that there can exist actions which are misogynistic? No, it cannot. So, under no circumstances, if a man were to hit another man, such an action can be considered misogynistic. If a man opens a car door for another man, under no circumstances, such an action can be considered misogynistic. If a man does not open a car door for another man, under no circumstances, that action can be considered misogynistic. Yet, if a man hits a woman, opens a car door for a woman, or fails to open a car door for a woman, under some circumstances, that act can be considered misogynistic.
If what we said so far is true, then it follows that misogyny concerns itself with actions directed towards a woman. Now, what is that which concerns itself with conduct between people? Justice. Therefore, misogyny concerns itself with the just conduct towards women. Are misogynistic actions considered to be bad? Indeed, they are. Is committing an injustice considered to be bad or good? Surely it is considered bad. Therefore, to enact a misogynistic action is to enact an injustice and to not enact a misogynistic action is to conduct oneself justly towards a woman.
Now we must come to understand what are just and what are unjust acts we can enact in relation to a woman.
Is it the case that when one conducts oneself justly towards another that that person is bettered or made worse by the interaction? Surely, the person on the receiving end of the just action becomes better as a consequence. If this were not the case then one would necessarily need to conclude that injustice can be good for a person who is acted towards unjustly in some cases and there would also exist cases where being acted towards justly would be bad for the recipient.
Now, can a thing become bettered if actions are taken towards it in light of its nature or in spite of its nature? But perhaps I first need to clarify what I mean before we can answer this question. If you were to treat a fish like a cat and a cat like a fish, would either the fish or the cat be better off as a consequence? For example, if you treat a cat according to the essence of a fish you would quickly try to throw the cat into water as that is the appropriate habitat for a fish and a necessary condition for the fish to continue to live. And in this same way, if you saw a fish in water and treated it according to the nature of a cat you would be required to consider the fish to be drowning and quickly pull it out of the water onto dry land. Clearly, in both cases, acting towards a thing against its nature is detrimental to that thing; and therefore, to act in contradiction to its nature is to make that thing worse off, and therefore to act unjustly towards it.
So, in this way we must conclude that a woman is bettered when one conducts one’s actions towards her in adherence to her nature. She is made worse when one conduct’s one’s actions towards her in contradiction to her nature. From this it follows that to act justly towards a woman we must conduct our actions according to her nature. To conduct our actions towards a woman in contradiction to her nature is therefore unjust. From this it then follows that an action directed towards a woman which is in contradiction to her nature is a misogynistic action and an action directed towards a woman in compliance with her nature is not a misogynistic action.
Therefore, misogyny is behavior directed towards a woman which is in contradiction to her nature. Or, in other words, treating a woman as anything other than a woman is misogyny.
As MGTOW have concluded that a woman’s essence includes things like hypergamy, in-group bias, a timeboxed fertility window, inferior intelligence, inferior strength, a limited capacity to dealing with stress, and so on, then it follows that to treat a woman as if she does not possess these qualities as part of her nature is misogyny.
This is a radical inversion of the garden variety understanding of misogyny as presented by feminists. However, such a conclusion of our inquiry is not surprising or unexpected. I have previously defended the thesis that the feminists who laid the groundwork for feminist doctrine suffered from ressentiment, which ultimately turned into a slave revolt in morality and an inversion of values held dear by the master class of men and master class of women. To discover from our inquiry that to invert the feminist notion of misogyny is to come to the correct conclusion as to it’s essence is therefore obvious.
Even by interrogating the most obvious and common phenomena in terms of women shows us the truth of the matter. Feminist denial of the essence of woman has led to nothing less than monstrous behavior on the part of women along with ever growing misery among women. Women are made worse by feminist beliefs.
However, this ought not be understood as a self-serving comment in that women are made worse in the eyes of men, but that women are just much worse human being in themselves. This degeneracy is by far experienced most prominently by women themselves. They are less happy, drugged up on anti-depressants, childless, less capable of dealing with reality, more irrational, and they live with a perceived sense of powerlessness and fear.
To treat a woman as if she were equal to a man, is to do her grave injustice much like to treat a cat like a fish is to do the cat a grave injustice. Woman cannot be expected to, or expect from themselves, to govern justly or wisely any more so than women can be expected to be effective soldiers. As such, granting women certain powers and responsibilities, like the right to vote, is an act of misogyny, an injustice towards woman, as the burden is too heavy for them to carry. This is much the same as placing the authority and responsibility of leading an army onto a child. The child will not just lose the war get his soldiers killed, but he will also lead to his own destruction as a consequence.
The dictionary definition of misogyny begins by stating that misogyny is a hatred of women. Hatred, in the purely philosophical sense is a desire of a person for their object of hate to cease to exist. Feminists, and today women and many men in general, have destroyed woman as an essence. They deny the existence of female nature and put in place a peniseless man as what women are to be understood as. What the feminists did is the pinnacle of hatred of women; it is annihilation of woman at the very metaphysical level. This cannot be any clearer than the feminist notion that the concepts of man and woman are social constructs. Feminists deny women even exist. If nothing else, can this not be considered misogyny?!
We do not treat cats like we treat fish. We do not treat children like we treat adults. We ought not treat women as we treat men or men as we treat women. And by treating each according to their nature we treat them all equally; namely, we treat they all justly.
Thanks for listening,