Tuesday Reads: Etymological Misogyny
Posted: August 6, 2013 Filed under: just because 12 CommentsHey all, you may have noticed this post fly in and out of the intertubes – please bear with me as my fledgling wings attempt Skydancing!
Just a quick snippet, folks. Some of you may remember the brief discussion of flyting during my Happiness post. I promised then to find more info. on it in my notes. My notes are quite extensive. I haven’t found it yet. But I did find a few other amusing tidbits to tide us over until I do find it.
First up in my pile of strange things, Joseph Swetnam’s 1615 manuscript entitled The Arraignment of Lewd, Idle, Froward, and Unconstant Women. The full title without my editorial hand:
The Araignment of Lewde, idle, froward, and unconstant women: or the vanitie of them, and choose you wether. With a Commendacion of a wife, vertuous and honest women. Pleasant for married Men, profitable for yong men, and hurtful to none
Wikipedia puts it into context with not so bad a summary:
Joseph Swetnam – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jezebel suggests that Swetnam’s vicious little tome might represent the etymological root for the term misogyny. I can’t provide an earlier counter-example, and I haven’t researched it at all, but my gut tells me 1615 is a bit late:
Here’s the opening paragraph, I’m editing it quite a bit so the language is more accessible:
Neither to the best nor yet to the worst, but to the common sort of women.
Musing with myself being idle, and having little ease to passe the time withal, and I being in great chollor against some women, I mean more than one; and so in the ruffe of my fury, taking my pen in hand to beguile the time withal, indeed I might have employed myself to better use than in such an idle business, and better it were to pocket up a pelting injury then to entangle myself with such vermin, for this I know that because women are women, therefore many of them will do that in an hour, which they may many times will repent their whole lifetime after, yet for any injury which I have received of thee, the more may say (?) me that I have sought for honey, caught the Bee by the tail, or that I could never have been expert in bewraying their qualities, for the Mother would never have sought her Daughter in the oven but that she was there first herself; Indeed I must confess I have been a traveller this thirty odd years, and many travelers live in disdain of women, the reason is, for that affections are so poisoned with the heinous evils of unconstant women which they happen to be acquainted with in their travels: for it doth so cloy their stomachs that they censure hardly of women afterwards, wronged men will not be tongue-tyed: Therefore if you do ill you must not think to hear well, for although the world be bad, yet it is not come to that passe that men should bear with all the bad conditions that is in some women.
I do not wish them [women] to have power over men; but over themselves.
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
ecocatwoman
mablue2
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
speaking of which it is starting already:
GOP Operative’s Anti-Clinton Super PAC Encourages Users To ‘Slap Hillary’ In The Face http://thkpr.gs/17vsX7D “
There’s been talk of this antiClinton pac for awhile. But even just looking at history, it was only a matter of time. Yawn
This is the level we have descended to in America? Not that it is a surprise. I’m just disappointed by the vitriol. I would like to exist without all the vitriol and divisiveness, machinations, misogyny, and ugliness. That’s my diatribe for the day.
Yeah. It would be nice if it all went away.
Who was it that coined the term misogyny? Jezebel says 1615. This link says 1650s. I had no idea it went back that far.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=misogyny
The root of the word is is from the Greek.
Yes, the link does say 1650s. This site is following the OED – the Oxford English Dictionary which lists the same 1656. The OED is the authoritative source, but it isn’t perfect. We clearly have a discrepancy. Swetnam’s Arraignment is 1615. Christine Hutchins also cites The Swetnam controversy as the source: http://www.ontheissuesmagazine.com/cafe2/article/63
I was assuming yours was the correct one.
I’m not sure that there is a correct answer. Now that I’ve unearthed Swetnam he seems to be occupying a spot not unlike my postal scrap. I’m keeping The Arraignment table-side as a reminder to seek for “misogyny” references prior to 1615.
Well, here is some misogyny for you that is a present day reminder this shit is beyond disgusting: This Week in Misogyny, England Edition – Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money
The Vindication of the Rights of Women is by Mary Wollstonecraft, not her daughter, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (who wrote Frankenstein).
Corby,
You have a beautiful eye! Indeed! You are correct. I have no explanation for the obvious error. I shall fix it promptly! Thank you for the correction! Many, many thanks for keeping me on my toes! 🙂
Oh, JJ. That article stops me in my tracks. I can’t wrap my brain around it. I just read an article similar to this today about rape victims in the U.S. prison system where the U.S. Justice Department makes the same kind of claim about imprisoned women raped by prison guards. I searched for it but for the life of me I can’t find it.