Ziklag - Misogyny

Ad Hominem Hatred for Men

“Misogyny!” as Fool’s Curse

Dismissing Nature in the Name of the Wrong Feelings

The term “misogyny” has evolved from its ancient Greek origins to its current use as a critical lens for understanding systemic devaluation of women. However, its application has broadened in ways that risk distorting the historical and philosophical insights surrounding gender roles and relational dynamics. By examining the Greek roots of misogyny and notions of “inferiority” (hēttōn) in Platonic discourses, alongside the biblical wisdom of Solomon, this article explores how the dismissal of nature, folly, and relational dependency challenges both masculine and feminine tendencies. This interdisciplinary exploration argues that modern discussions of misogyny must be tempered by an understanding of its linguistic and metaphysical origins.

1. Introduction: Misogyny and Its Evolution

The term “misogyny” (μισογυνία) originates from ancient Greek:

• μῖσος (misos), meaning “hatred.”

• γυνή (gynē), meaning “woman” or “wife.”

Initially describing an explicit hatred or disdain for women, the word gained traction in feminist discourse during the 20th century, particularly with thinkers like Kate Millett and Andrea Dworkin. By the 21st century, feminist philosopher Kate Manne reframed misogyny as “the policing and enforcement of patriarchal norms” rather than individual animosity.

While the evolution of misogyny as a concept has provided a powerful critique of systemic gender inequality, it has also risked reducing nuanced discussions of human tendencies, strengths, and weaknesses into ideological binaries.

2. Plato and Aristotle on “Inferiority” and Dependency

A. Greek Philosophical Roots: What Does “Inferior” Mean?

Plato and Aristotle both used the term ἥττων (hēttōn), traditionally translated as “inferior,” to describe women in relation to men. However, a closer root analysis suggests that hēttōn carries a deeper, more nuanced meaning:

• Root of Hēttōn:

• From hēt- (ἡτ-), meaning “to lean, to be less strong.”

• PIE root: kei-, meaning “to fall, to lean, or to lie low.”

• Implication: Inferiority as dependency rather than deficiency.

In this framework, hēttōn does not denote intrinsic worthlessness but a natural inclination toward relational reliance. Women were seen as leaning on men for protection and leadership within the philosophical and cultural contexts of ancient Greece.

B. Kratos: The Strength to Press Down

The contrasting term κράτος (kratos), meaning “strength” or “power,” reflects a concept of dominance or control.

• Root of Kratos:

• PIE root: **ker- (“to press, to control, to hold”).

• Implication: Kratos represents the ability to act decisively and exert influence.

Together, these terms present a relational dynamic:

• Hēttōn (inferior): One who relies on external support.

• Kratos (superior): One who has the strength to bear responsibility.

C. Plato’s Dualistic View of Gender

Plato’s works, particularly The Republic, present a tension between the metaphysical equality of souls and the physical or emotional “inferiority” of women. While acknowledging women’s capacity for virtue, Plato frames their dependency (hēttōn) as a limitation within the practicalities of governance and warfare.

3. Solomon and the Warnings Against Folly

A. Proverbs and Ecclesiastes on Women and Wisdom

Solomon’s writings frequently contrast wisdom and folly, often personifying them as women:

• Wisdom (חָכְמָה, chokhmah): Depicted as noble, life-giving, and aligned with divine order (Proverbs 8:1-11).

• Folly (אִוֶּלֶת, ivvelet): Associated with seduction, destruction, and chaos (Proverbs 9:13-18).

In Proverbs 31, the “virtuous woman” (eshet chayil) embodies wisdom, strength, and industriousness, challenging the Greek notion of hēttōn as weakness. However, Solomon also warns against the “adulterous woman” who leads men astray, reflecting the dangers of relational dependence corrupted by deceit.

B. Misogyny as Dismissal of Relational Dynamics

Modern interpretations of misogyny risk dismissing Solomon’s nuanced view of gender tendencies:

1. Feminine Relational Strength: Solomon recognizes women’s capacity for influence and leadership (Proverbs 31).

2. Feminine Vulnerability: He warns against the misuse of relational power, which leads to folly and destruction.

4. Misogyny as Ad Hominem in Modern Discourse

A. The Weaponization of Misogyny

In contemporary discourse, accusations of misogyny often function as ad hominem attacks to dismiss critiques of gender tendencies or biological realities. By framing any acknowledgment of difference as “hatred,” modern feminism risks undermining:

• Theological Insight: The biblical view of relational interdependence.

• Philosophical Nuance: The Greek recognition of complementary roles in human flourishing.

B. Dismissing Men and Nature

Modern usage of misogyny often ignores the corresponding critique of men’s tendencies toward domination (kratos) and irresponsibility. Plato, Aristotle, and Solomon all warn against men abusing their strength or failing to lead justly.

Example in Solomon: Ecclesiastes 7:26 describes the “woman whose heart is snares and nets” as a metaphor for folly, but the wise man escapes her by aligning with God’s order. The text critiques both genders’ capacity for moral failure.

5. Toward a Christian Understanding of Philanthropy

A. Rediscovering Woman’s Dependency as Strength

The root hēttōn emphasizes relational reliance, which is not inherently negative. Dependency reflects human nature, as all people “lean” on God and each other for strength (Proverbs 3:5-6). Misogyny in its true sense—hatred of women—must be distinguished from legitimate discussions of relational dynamics.

B. Understanding Plato, Trusting Solomon, and Rejecting Modern Lies

1. Plato and Aristotle: Highlight the dangers of ignoring natural roles, but their conclusions require re-examination in light of divine revelation.

2. Solomon: Offers a biblical vision where wisdom and folly transcend gender but are expressed through relational tendencies.

3. Modern Feminism: As spent its capital as an argument advancing more and more ludicrous claims and demands. In a world of mancaves and mansplaining, chauvinism! and nazism!, ‘me too’ rings hollow in the ears of the truly powerless.

A Made Up Word to Hate Men With

The evolution of misogyny from its Greek origins to modern feminist discourse reveals the complexity of Genesis 3. Plato’s hēttōn and Solomon’s warnings against folly highlight need for moral interdependence between men and women as distinct, true and real.

Misogyny, weaponized as an ad hominem dismissal, in a word, an accusation, a snake-bite, the witness and confession of the greatest abominable Mythos of our time. She who reigns by shame slaughters her children for career and barks loudly in the street. But death is under her bed.

Rather than reducing the talk of every man who talks to men about being men rather than women to the playground, illiterate and programmed barking about “hatred,” Christian men everywhere WILL recover a holistic understanding of huMANity— acknowledging the gem of woMAN within everlasting divine framework KINGdom.