Are there womenfolk on this forum?

[matti]

*Apologies, I have a dictionary on my Palm, couldn't resist the urge to geek out! 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry

I really miss those almost forgotten times, the smell of paper, coffee stains on dictionaries, urges to geek out...  

[nut-job]

But, of recent coinage (thus, invented).  There's an older post of mine somewhere or other, but the word was nowhere to be found in even the supplement to the OED . . . .

Aren't all words invented?  Websters ascribes the etymology of the word to 1909.

[Josquin des Prez]

But, of recent coinage (thus, invented).  There's an older post of mine somewhere or other, but the word was nowhere to be found in even the supplement to the OED . . . .

I'm not even sure where are you going with this. If we accept the term misogyny as valid, shouldn't we also acknowledge it's opposite?

[Josquin des Prez]

No misandry here at all.

Indeed? You don't think that ascribing men's preference for classical music on our supposed innate taste for war and violence carries an inherent negative connotation to it?

[karlhenning]

But, of recent coinage (thus, invented).  There's an older post of mine somewhere or other, but the word was nowhere to be found in even the supplement to the OED . . . .

Here.

[Tapio Dmitriyevich]

Indeed? You don't think that ascribing men's preference for classical music on our supposed innate taste for war and violence carries an inherent negative connotation to it?

No. Honestly. At least not for me.

[karlhenning]

I'm not even sure where are you going with this. If we accept the term misogyny as valid, shouldn't we also acknowledge it's opposite?

The fact that words have history.  That the word misogyny has existed in the English language for centuries, reflects actual experience.  The fact that a ready opposite in "misandry" did not exist until (say) someone in the 1980s thought, "the term misogyny as valid, so shouldn't we also acknowledge it's opposite?" suggests to me that there was no need for the word from experience in the actual world.

[karlhenning]

So, it was an easy word to invent.  And then when someone has invented a word, there are people who "find" it in the world around them.

[DavidRoss]

I can believe you are haunted by visions and ideas, 99% of which are incomprehensible to men and women.  The technical term is "dissociative disorder.

Hmmm...seems more like a form of grandiose delusional disorder, sadly shared by two or three others who show up here occasionally and who are similarly misogynistic.

[nut-job]

The fact that a ready opposite in "misandry" did not exist until (say) someone in the 1980s thought, "the term misogyny as valid, so shouldn't we also acknowledge it's opposite?" suggests to me that there was no need for the word from experience in the actual world.

Websters etymology says 1909.  Is that old enough to be a real word?  Websters says homosexual was invented in 1892, only 17 years older.

[Josquin des Prez]

The fact that words have history.  That the word misogyny has existed in the English language for centuries, reflects actual experience.  The fact that a ready opposite in "misandry" did not exist until (say) someone in the 1980s thought, "the term misogyny as valid, so shouldn't we also acknowledge it's opposite?" suggests to me that there was no need for the word from experience in the actual world.

By your reasoning, the the term "racism" is equally invalid, for it too was coined out of thin air somewhere around the mid 1930s, to describe a phenomena which prior to that point was never part of any "actual world experience". Furthermore, the word misogyny itself as been "redefined" to include ideas and forms of behavior which were never part of the "actual world experience" which served as the basis of the original meaning of the world in the first place. Prior to the onslaught waged by Marxist liberal ideology against traditional western values, to impute that men and women had specific differences that made the suited for different roles was never part of the definition of misogyny, which means your argument here is standing of weak foundations.

[Sergeant Rock]

I also tend to like anything loud and angsty...I guess I'm a bit different...

So is Mrs. Rock then. You described the kind of music she likes...the darker the better. But, true to the stereotype others have offered here, she really does hate Wagner (excepting the Dutchman).

I maintain there are many women who like the more challenging classical, though they just don't post on forums to the same frequency as men.

This is also my experience.

And mine.

Sarge

[Sergeant Rock]

The Muslims are no more of an extreme then we are, they just point towards the opposite direction. We like to think ourselves superior but our sex obsessed society is equally barbarous, perhaps even more so.

The Muslims are as sex obsessed as any society, including our own. That's the reason they cover the women: to hide the object of their obsession in order to get a little work done. 

Sarge

[karlhenning]

Websters etymology says 1909.  Is that old enough to be a real word?  Websters says homosexual was invented in 1892, only 17 years older.

"A real word"; wait, don't tell me: you're being coy!

Is there a source?  Solely in a spirit of inquiry, I am curious why, if it has such a pedigree, (a) the word utterly fails to appear in the OED, and (b) why there is nothing between misally and misanthropy in hard-cover copies in my cubicle and the next, of either The American Heritage Dictionary or Websters (an edition ©1982, BTW).

Or is this just the inevitable "wiki artifact"?  There's some 'source' on the Internet which says it dates from 1909?

[karlhenning]

The Muslims are as sex obsessed as any society, including our own. That's the reason they cover the women: to hide the object of their obsession in order to get a little work done.

Well, that is the reason I've been told that women have to pray behind the men in the mosque;  the 'unthinkable' situation of having women bending over, in the sight of men!

[Josquin des Prez]

c) do you really think this applies to a modern human being, who aren't hunters and gatherers any more?

We are still the same people we were 10.000 years ago. Modern human beings as defined by 20th century liberalism is just make believe. There is no "equality" among men and women. The sexes are not interchangeable. You have just been a victim of brainwashing and social engineering, the entire purpose of which was to specifically destroy the family nucleus and by extension rob society of any masculine (and therefore conceptual) influence and turn us all, men and women alike, into units of production.

[Sergeant Rock]

Well, that is the reason I've been told that women have to pray behind the men in the mosque;  the 'unthinkable' situation of having women bending over, in the sight of men!

Yes, that situation would tend to make the male mind stray towards less lofty thought 

Sarge

[DavidRoss]

Well, that is the reason I've been told that women have to pray behind the men in the mosque;  the 'unthinkable' situation of having women bending over, in the sight of men!

Women were not even allowed in some of mosques I've been in.

[nut-job]

"A real word"; wait, don't tell me: you're being coy!

Is there a source?  Solely in a spirit of inquiry, I am curious why, if it has such a pedigree, (a) the word utterly fails to appear in the OED, and (b) why there is nothing between misally and misanthropy in hard-cover copies in my cubicle and the next, of either The American Heritage Dictionary or Websters (an edition ©1982, BTW).

Or is this just the inevitable "wiki artifact"?  There's some 'source' on the Internet which says it dates from 1909?

The 1909 date comes from the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary.  

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misandry

As for your OED, the word may be of American origin, and or may only recently have become widely used enough to merit appearance in a dictionary, despite having appeared by 1909.  But I am curious, and when I have access will look in my circa 1975 Unabridged Random House dictionary (this evening).

I would also inquire what the distinction is between a word that "fails to appear" in your dictionary and a word that "utterly fails to appear" in your dictionary?  

[karlhenning]

The 1909 date comes from the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary.  

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misandry

As for your OED, the word may be of American origin, and or may only recently have become widely used enough to merit appearance in a dictionary, despite having appeared by 1909.  But I am curious, and when I have access will look in my circa 1975 Unabridged Random House dictionary (this evening).

I would also inquire what the distinction is between a word that "fails to appear" in your dictionary and a word that "utterly fails to appear" in your dictionary?

Where the "utterly" comes from is, it appears neither in the OED proper, nor in the supplement published after the final volume of the main dictionary.  And the editors made a point of soliciting words from the father-flung reaches of the English-speaking world . . . and there were many readers from the states who supplied word-cards.

Do report: consider me interested