Can we just agree that this qualifies as misogyny?
Why in the world would we agree to that?
Certainly we can agree that it's categorically evil, illegal, condemned by society, and punishable to issue death threats. However, an act is only misogynistic if it is motivated by animus against the female gender. The only way we can be certain of what motivated this act is to track the perpetrator down and question him about it. If it turns out he is motivated by animus against women, then it's misogyny. If not, then it's not.
There is this tendency amongst postmodern leftists to label any bad thing that happens to any woman anywhere as misogyny in order to play into a narrative of universal oppression. This tendency must be resisted by anyone interested in figuring out what's really true about a given situation.
It's possible that the death threats against Anita Sarkeesian are motivated not by animus against women, but rather by a perceived slight or harm that she has inflicted on a community (plus some very bad ideas concerning how to respond to perceived slights or harm).
There is precedent for this. When Jack Thompson claimed that video games turned children into mindless murder zombies hellbent on the wholesale slaughter of innocent people, he received death threats from gamers. Did anyone say "can't we all agree that this was clearly misandry?" No, because nobody wanted to fit that incident into a gender narrative. There was another narrative, though: "See? These death threats prove that gamers are mindless murder zombies! Just like I said!" But it didn't take people more than an instant to see through that one.
All of these people issuing death threats are psychopathic terrorists with clear deficiencies in their cognitive processes -- but not necessarily misogynists, or any of the other -ists that people throw around these days without regard to the severity of those words.
ISIS, on the other hand, is unquestionably a misogynistic organization. We know this because they have issued clear and unambiguous policies about the treatment of women which assign them a lesser class. Their motivations, in their own unvarnished words, are driven by the mistreatment of people based on gender, and these motivations are codified into policy and carried out by force.
Why in the world would we agree to that?
Certainly we can agree that it's categorically evil, illegal, condemned by society, and punishable to issue death threats. However, an act is only misogynistic if it is motivated by animus against the female gender. The only way we can be certain of what motivated this act is to track the perpetrator down and question him about it. If it turns out he is motivated by animus against women, then it's misogyny. If not, then it's not.
There is this tendency amongst postmodern leftists to label any bad thing that happens to any woman anywhere as misogyny in order to play into a narrative of universal oppression. This tendency must be resisted by anyone interested in figuring out what's really true about a given situation.
It's possible that the death threats against Anita Sarkeesian are motivated not by animus against women, but rather by a perceived slight or harm that she has inflicted on a community (plus some very bad ideas concerning how to respond to perceived slights or harm).
There is precedent for this. When Jack Thompson claimed that video games turned children into mindless murder zombies hellbent on the wholesale slaughter of innocent people, he received death threats from gamers. Did anyone say "can't we all agree that this was clearly misandry?" No, because nobody wanted to fit that incident into a gender narrative. There was another narrative, though: "See? These death threats prove that gamers are mindless murder zombies! Just like I said!" But it didn't take people more than an instant to see through that one.
All of these people issuing death threats are psychopathic terrorists with clear deficiencies in their cognitive processes -- but not necessarily misogynists, or any of the other -ists that people throw around these days without regard to the severity of those words.
ISIS, on the other hand, is unquestionably a misogynistic organization. We know this because they have issued clear and unambiguous policies about the treatment of women which assign them a lesser class. Their motivations, in their own unvarnished words, are driven by the mistreatment of people based on gender, and these motivations are codified into policy and carried out by force.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.