The Myth of Misogyny & The Meaning of Marriage

Brian Worley  

Some skeptical writers have "uncovered" a problem that I think warrants a greater degree of scrutiny than it's been given. Misogyny is their claim and man is the culprit. 

When I first heard the term, I marveled, then clamored for a dictionary to look up the meaning of the dastardly term. Misogyny defined is hatred or dislike of females. 

Step one in Problem Solving 101 requires one to first properly define the problem, and then start working towards the solution.  While there is nothing obscure about a "hatred or dislike of females" definition; many of our skeptical eyebrows are raised when such a precise definition is exchanged for a "pharmaceutical name" such as misogyny.  

I smell a "hate bait" draft coming from an open window on the left flank. Damn it, I get the impression that these writers want one group to hate another. I'm not buying it! 

Do men really hate women? 

The misogyny claim is ridiculous upon common observation. History is replete with male machinations to get into a woman's pants. My observations have been that men will do most anything to gain favor in hope of a favor. Men love women!  

In the game plan to get that favor, men must exhibit kindness, friendship, romance, etc. and thus misogyny would inhibit one of the most powerful drives within man. Man isn't that stupid, he thinks through his penis way too often to be a misogynist! The most likely candidate for misogyny has got to be someone that can't think through their penis, you know, someone that doesn't have a penis. A woman. 

Misogyny apologists most assuredly will be offended with the challenge of their orthodoxy. No one denies, or is an apologist for men that have mistreated women in the past or that it is acceptable to mistreat a woman going forward. I wished that misogynist apologists would acknowledge that history is also replete with male chivalry that comes to the aid of a damsel in distress and to defend a woman's honor. 

While acknowledging isolated cases of misogyny performed by crotchety men; I think misogyny is more of a female problem with a feminine culprit. This writer grew up observing the behavior around my two older sisters. One was the home coming queen in a relatively large high school, while the other was voted the best looking girl in her class. Their looks and charm made them targets in the feminine world. During their schooling years, my sisters were polite, kind and caring girls but those traits were not often reciprocal from their peers.  

Women can be downright brutal to other women. I don't know why it is that way, it just is. I suspect that woman make rivals of other women that they perceive might stand in the way of their getting something that they potentially might desire. My sisters were two of the more likeable girls in their class; this meant that of necessity that some other girls were going to descend in the pecking order of male choice.  

For the sake of brevity; one could come away with the impression that I have reduced a woman's primary worth in the eyes of males down to her attractiveness as a sexual object. Contrary to the "hate baiters" delight of wallowing in the framing of women as being sexual objects for man's enjoyment; this writer feels strongly that what man really wants is a partner that he is attracted to that will navigate the ups and downs of life's journey for the duration of his life with his wife and their offspring being there for each other until they reach life's finishing line.  

Something happens though on that road to paradise. I wish that women were much more skeptical about truth claims and the bombardment of propositions they receive. What exactly is it that makes us happy? Why doesn't that next trinket satisfy? Do we recognize and appreciate the plateaus of life whenever they are reached? Why is it that women are so often willing to throw off their contentment and beg for something more? 

Illustration of a typical marriage that ends in divorce 

Young couple gets married and are happy together for a time. Woman approaches her man and says "I want... "  The husband wanting to please his wife says, "Let me see what I can do?" 

That husband consults with his boss and says to his wife, "I can work more hours and bring home a larger paycheck". At the present time, she works from 8:30am until 4pm while the man leaves home at 8am and gets home at 5pm. He says, honey if I work these extra hours we won't have as much time together as before. Are you going to be OK with this arrangement? 

She agrees, while her daily routine stays the same he now leaves home at 7am and doesn't get back until 6:30pm. The man sacrificed to please his wife but wonders why his wife is somewhat less receptive and loving as she was before. Wife says she is now too tired to cook dinner and the husband wonders why the extra money he has made goes to restaurants rather than saving for that new ___. The man sacrificed, the woman atrophied. They start fussing and stop f'ing. 

Why does this happen? Because the woman got the idea in her head that this something or another will lead to greater happiness. She bought a lie. Now their relationship is on the fast tract south. 

Partners make decisions together and have the integrity to see them through; one does this... the other does that. The successful ones do what I once heard Joseph Campbell say is essential for a good marriage. They sacrifice for the union; the union of marriage. 

Marriage is a union of two spiritual beings. The attraction got them together, books have been written about what keeps them together. The goal of this essay is to point out the secular/spiritual something that derails them. 

While one may wonder why I have placed two seemingly distinct ideas together in this essay... I think the heart of the matter is man's disappointment with the atrophy of his relationship with the partner that promised to be with him until death they do part. 

Man has a right to be upset whenever his partner doesn't maintain their agreement. In cases like these, anger is love disappointed (the second referral to a lyric of the musical group the Eagle's in this essay).  

Something has sidetracked his partner. She isn't as focused on the relationship as before because she isn't happy because she isn't getting something that she wants that is supposed to make her happy. That new trinket is supposed to make momma happy and if momma isn't happy then the saying is that nobody is happy. Momma atrophied. 

Atrophy?  In layman's terms it is when something runs out. If you quickly unplug an iron from an electrical outlet you will see what I mean. Doing so will produce a spark that dissipates right in front of your eyes. It was once hot and steamy, and then someone pulled the plug. The power that generated the spark is gone. 

The drive of unrestrained consumerism and the lack of discernment to say NO are destroying relationships. Can't blame this one on a fictitious devil or the marketer. 

Isn't this the lesson of the great story of Eve in the Bible? Can't modern society grasp the meaning of a metaphor? A woman was whispered to by a serpent (modern day this would be a marketer, etc.) that in essence said, "Hey, you are missing out on something. If you do this or that you will have greater happiness or a better life." Eve in the Bible was in paradise (it doesn't get any better than this plateau). Adam had to work much harder afterwards and things were not the same afterwards. Ah for the good ole days! 

A woman has the love of a man, happiness in the home and if there are kids they are much more likely to experience a warm and loving atmosphere to model to future generations. Pardon this ex-minister for cherry picking an idea from the Bible that comes to mind here, "godliness with contentment is great gain." Coveting is what kicks one out of paradise. If someone doesn't understand this they are god dammed stupid! 

 

 

PS: There are many esoteric truths within religion that if rightfully handled and presented would be beneficial for society. Perhaps my ministerial degree isn't worthless after all. Spirituality doesn't have to be religious. It is sad that modern clergy have failed to utilize the tools at its disposal well enough to effectively confront the break down of marriage & the family. Governments can spend on policies and programs, but the domain of divorce is a spiritual matter and the church needs to diligently "get with the program!" It's sad that secularism doesn't discuss values (an oxymoron for the left). Sad that the non-religious confuse spirituality with religion and forsake some of the great metaphors from the Bible to illustrate great truths of life. Good religion should tame the appetite of what is not virtuous or excesses. 

If the secular minded want a good reason to justify anger, think of the child that gets deprived of a better life due to the spiritual issues of their father, mother or guardians and the subsequent aftermath when the kid gets separated from what is ideal. When mom and dad can't get their act together it is often the kids that get the worse end of the break-up. 

As for my last line in the essay, notice that I used a lower cased g. As a deist, God doesn't write books or have men pen them. No one has been able to prove God exists; you can only falsify the books that are claimed to have been inspired from a deity. This is what skeptics do, I wish they had better spiritual discernment with what really ails society and worked towards solutions with positive energy. That said, I believe in God and the reason why isn't because of faith derived from a text. I also believe in the power of myth to teach truths. My belief in God isn't to be construed as a competitive or in a jealous demeanor towards religion and it's gods. The reason I haven't sought the destruction of religion is due to the fact that it has an attached moral/ethical system that is advantageous to society. Secular minded/non-religious folks don't claim a defined morality system, thus their morality is vague and undefined. Manifestoes are as close as you can get to define their beliefs and many within don't want to be bound by the constraints of a manifesto. This unruly type of secularism tends to be narcissistic and destructive. My opinion is that modern secular groups are pussyfooters that need to "tighten up" and stop being so inclusive of everyone for the sake of numbers. That they should be known for having love in their hearts rather than making a scene due to their anger. Secular society doesn't discuss values enough for my tastes. Those that cannot understand why God and religion are important are those that are god dammed stupid. God and the concept of God should be respected, not denigrated! Excuse this snippet and shameless plug for an ex-minister style of conservative secularism that I think can play on Main Street.

 

Brian Worley   Ex-Minister.org   February 18, 2015    All rights reserved.

 




To Return to the Main Page