(2) The adoption of this system of inequality never was the result of deliberation, or
forethought, or any social ideas, or any notion whatever of what would be best for humanity or the good order of society. It arose simply from the fact that from the dawn of human society every woman was in a state of bondage to some man, because •she was of value to him and •she had less muscular strength than he did. — The Subjection of Women - John Stuart Mill

I hesitate to argue with you John, but it seems to me more likely that the dawn of civilisation would most likely have been matrilineal, because there is rarely much doubt of an offspring's maternity, whereas paternity would be hard to establish. It follows that the subjugation of women, essential to a patrilineal system that predominates today and since historical times, was indeed a deliberate, revolutionary act that inverted the 'natural' order. The difference in muscular strength is too small to overcome alone, the natural advantage of giving birth, and thus knowing one's offspring with certainty.

(In a matrilineal system, men can still dominate in some ways, but the offspring they would primarily regard as "theirs" would be their sister's children, not what modern man takes to be his own, usually on faith.)

Also, how likely is it that, not only men, but people generally are willing to stand up against the powerful? — Amity

Unlikely.

How many of us are frustrated in our lack of power, our vulnerability to imposed, dramatic change?

Almost everyone I speak with.

How many will turn to the 'certainties' and 'strength' of a male, dictator?

Lots, but only in the name of change and a bright future.

It's doubtful that reading Mills will help in any way. So, who to turn to for guidance?

No one. No one can help.

Will people be seduced or coerced back to the comforts of the religion of the patriarchy?

Yes. Though requiring everyone to have an income, and the continued availability of washing machines, will stop the worst excesses of that backslide. Those In Power have no ability to stop women from working, I believe.

It's worth noting that every demographic swung harder for Trump than anticipated. And also that people tend to get more culturally conservative or fash-y in times of economic duress. Original article is quite ahistorical, it's a normal Guardian speculative gender thinkpiece.

Those In Power have no ability to stop women from working, I believe. — fdrake

What happened after women joined the work force? The people in power raised prices to match a double income.

Now a family is expected to have high double incomes to be fairly stable... now both the parents are absent the child's life... and the childreb have to be watched by people who really don't give a fuck cause they're watching 20 other screaming shitting lasses and lads...

My sister found her child face down and unconscious at a daycare when she went to pick him up. Kid has a brain injury now.

Jobs were practically made for men to become more complete... because ancient man looked at women and evaluated they have menstruation to show they've reached adulthood. Jobs and all that shit were for men to become more complete, to become adults...and serve their society. Women were intrinsically complete...

That women want to find a purpose other than baby machine is one thing... but Nietzsche warned about the masculinization of the feminine instincts further... and now Transgenderism is popping off (vast majority of which is mtf) because the feminine instinct of humanity is so repressed...that it's having a spasmodic release of built up tension...

Slave morality idolizes the masculine in this way.

How many of us are frustrated in our lack of power, our vulnerability to imposed, dramatic change? — Amity

An increasing number, apparently. And the arch-apologist broadcaster spins it as a 'far left' conspiracy, 'far left', in his case, meaning any organization that promotes liberty, democracy and equality - you know, those radical American ideals they tried to enshrine in a constitution and its 27 amendments.

How many will turn to the 'certainties' and 'strength' of a male, dictator? — Amity

The one good thing about the Trump regime is its rush into madness. They could have snuck up on people, as clever dictators do, incrementally but Chubby-T is neither clever nor patient. Single best thing he's done to bring down his own administration: appointing Musk Slasher-in-chief. They can do an enormous amount of damage and hurt an awful lot of people before any change can take place.... but....
It should provide a warning to other populations leaning hard right.

OTOH,
the main drivers of the rightward shift are not going away just because we oppose the methods of their representatives. Automation proceeds headlong to deprive people of jobs they need in order to live in a home and be properly nourished. Price-gauging in food distribution, housing and transportation continues to make life harder for working people and untenable for the unemployed. Arable and habitable land is shrinking; inter- and intra-national conflicts turn large populations into migrants and refugees. As hardship increases, so does discontent and when discontent grows, so does the need for scapegoats.
Women in the workforce have been an irritant to some portion of male population since the end on WWI; the more women are educated and well-paid for executive and technical positions that men used to consider their exclusive domain, the greater the resentment from men who don't like to compete: the ones who don't perform well in school, are less meticulous, lack discipline would like much better to rule by force of brawn. The mainstream religions did nothing to set them straight, not just because they themselves are patriarchal in organization, but because women do the unpaid church-related charity work and each denomination is jealous of its parishioner numbers: depend on the reproduction of the faithful.

It's much easier for the exploiting classes to point at bogus causes for the people's anxiety, to goad the resentful into hatred and backlash against progress than to create conditions wherein people can co-exist with a minimum of discomfort.
For example, automation could always have been appropriately supervised and taxed, working hours reduced accordingly; quality day-care and primary education provided at work-places; good public housing, sanitation, education, health-care and elder-care provided by the government; a living wage for migrant workers and non-discriminatory housing and banking regulation and genuine equal treatment of citizens under the law and in the work-force.

All of these measures could have been implemented from the onset of the Industrial Revolution, when is social upheavals were first observed. A few progressive industrialists made sincere efforts on behalf of their workers and neighbours, but by 1914, social conscience had pretty much been drained out of capitalism. The robber barons would rather buy corrupt politicians than sound policies.

I hesitate to argue with you John, but it seems to me more likely that the dawn of civilisation would most likely have been matrilineal, because there is rarely much doubt of an offspring's maternity, whereas paternity would be hard to establish. It follows that the subjugation of women, essential to a patrilineal system that predominates today and since historical times, was indeed a deliberate, revolutionary act that inverted the 'natural' order. — unenlightened

If only Mill were alive to see how the libertarian progress and legislation made over centuries are now being ripped apart, decimated by powerful, misogynistic males.
Perhaps that is viewed as the 'natural' way. An evolution of revolutions and resolutions. A natural cycle.
Can we ever break out of this - 'it was ever thus' view of life?

It's unfortunate that I only quoted a very small part of his influential essay. Its significance lies in the impact of his argument concerning the legal and social inequality between the sexes. It shows a way to move people with the strength of a clear idea and its presentation. The start of a slow but sure change.

An Introduction:

Without wasting any time pontificating, Mill states at the outset “that the principle which regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes-​the legal subordination of one sex to the other is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement” (p. 409).
Mill saw the legal and social inequality between the sexes as one of the most egregious examples of an outdated and barbaric institution persisting throughout the centuries. Mill called women’s forced dependence on men “the primitive state of slavery lasting on” (p. 413).
[...]
The English common law doctrines of coverture and spousal unity— derived ultimately from the biblical book of Genesis — deprived a wife of legal status outside of her husband’s authority.
[...]
According to the doctrine of spousal unity, a married man and woman were considered by the law to be one body. Therefore, legally, sexual assault within a marriage was an impossibility. Husbands could, in Mill’s words, “claim from her and enforce the lowest degradation of a human being,” because the law protected abusive men, making them legally immune to any charges an abused wife might bring to court (p. 438). Under Victorian marriage laws, domestic abuse and spousal rape were legally sanctioned.
[...]
Mill was no abstract philosopher; all of his works were meant to convince people of the efficacy of social reform. The Subjection of Women was written to appeal to men and show them the benefits of equality.
[...]
Mill believed that ideas, not the state, would be the main engine of progress that drives humanity towards gender equality. Mill praised the “speculative faculties of mankind” and the subsequent successive transformations of human opinions.
...Mill envisaged a much larger movement that transformed society as a whole. In Mill’s plan for progress, the optimal task for the state is to protect individual rights and ensure that experiments of living can continue within a climate of tolerance and free inquiry. — Libertarianism - Introduction to Mill's The Subjection of Women

Who is the Mill of today? Who can maintain and promote the progressive vision? How we need more than legislation that can be overturned, so swiftly. How there is a need to show respect to each other everyday. Small steps in careful listening, not just to counteract but with a view to understanding. How each of us matters and not just as a material resource. How we can't just give in to dictators.

How many will turn to the 'certainties' and 'strength' of a male, dictator?

Lots, but only in the name of change and a bright future. — fdrake

In the name of a promised change and a bright future.

The promise to Make America Great Again. How's that working out?
The voters who believed in the words of a felon, a con man, a would-be dictator.

It's doubtful that reading Mills will help in any way. So, who to turn to for guidance?

No one. No one can help. — fdrake

Reading the Introduction to Mill's Essay has helped me see the possibilities of philosophers and others who act for change, for improvement in how things are and how they might be.

People in all spheres of life voicing opinions from a position of strength and creativity. Those with imagination who can inspire others. Wherever there is a platform where people gather.

Will people be seduced or coerced back to the comforts of the religion of the patriarchy?

Yes. Though requiring everyone to have an income, and the continued availability of washing machines, will stop the worst excesses of that backslide. Those In Power have no ability to stop women from working, I believe. — fdrake

So, those in comfortable circumstances will not feel the need? I think, even then, there are fears and anxieties that make people turn to a beneficent God. Or King of the World who will look after their interests over those of others.

Women can be prevented from working for a host of reasons. The lack of support in child or social care for the elderly, means that they are the prime carers of family and home. Pulled every way.
If there is a major cultural change in the offing, to increase amount of babies - will they be paid for that?
Or will it be a patriotic duty?

It's worth noting that every demographic swung harder for Trump than anticipated. And also that people tend to get more culturally conservative or fash-y in times of economic duress. Original article is quite ahistorical, it's a normal Guardian speculative gender thinkpiece. — fdrake

The economy is the main political issue. If voters perceive that they are worse off under a certain government, then they will change. If they believe in false promises and in a 'strong' leader, then that is who they will vote for. Even if they know that he is a liar! Go figure!

The article is also an advertisement for the author's book. Nevertheless, it makes good points and shows how an activist can make a difference. It's about all I can manage in a morning. If there are other articles or resources you have in mind, then lead the way!

Thank you, Vera, for a substantial post. There's a lot to take in!
I hope to read it and respond as soon as. :flower:

Mill, like much of the Enlightenment, was no doubt influenced by the loosening of the Christian religious stranglehold over European thought and the examples brought back from the New World of native philosophies and societies that functioned* immeasurably better than the European ones at that time. In pre-civilized communities, every member has to contribute as much as they are able for the well-being of the whole. They simply could not afford to waste half the tribe's intelligence and skill. Nor would a father
tolerate the abuse of his close cherished girl-child. The experience and memory of elders, both male and female were essential and respected and wise elders do not countenance waste or internal strife.
*They're making quite respectable progress toward regaining those ancient values. But, though the official discrimination eased up - at least in Canada, for the moment - many lands and other rights are still in dispute; the natives are a long way from self-determination. John Ralston Saul's book has some wise commentary on the subject, though it's a little out of date.

Everything changed with the ownership - not the cultivation - of land and the ascendance of warrior and priestly castes. Thereafter, social value was linked to dominance rather than contribution; both property and status were competed-for and jealously guarded; it was then that genetic provenance became important to men for their heritage and succession. It was then, too, that more and more new soldiers were required from the baby-dispensers to bulk up the unproductive and very expensive standing armies. So the hierarchical societies, which relied on conquest to increase their wealth, built reproductive bondage into their religious doctrines.

Mill called women’s forced dependence on men “the primitive state of slavery lasting on” — Libertarianism - Introduction to Mill's The Subjection of Women

Again I have to disagree with the great man. The state of slavery is not primitive; it is a sophisticated systematic exploitation of one group by another. It is not a natural occurrence and it doesn't happen by accident.

It is very important to understand that patrilineal inheritance, which allows for men to inherit property from their fathers, absolutely demands as precondition the sexual control of women. This is normalised by patriarchal religion and enforced by the laws enumerated above, and enforced by the threat of rape. Uppity women are "asking for it".

You're so much more succinct than I am.

You're so much more succinct than I am. — Vera Mont

Thanks! I'll be a bit more verbose then. :wink:

Here is the economic situation. The invisible, or blatantly obvious, hand is operating according to new rules. The old rules were endless growth, mass production, and mass consumption, with the 'entrepreneurs' taking the cream of the surplus. The ideology still prevails, but the realities have changed, and the 'entrepreneurs' have noticed a long time since.

AI and robotics mean that the mass of human labour force is no longer part of the means of production. This means that the majority of humans are economically redundant. Consider, for example, the size of the entertainment industry. it produces nothing - no bread, only circus. Add on the bureaucracy, the caring industry, beauty and fashion, sport, ... production of anything tangible is the province of a tiny minority.

But the literal killer is that production is becoming possible on a one off basis, with 3d printing for example. The end point for all this is indeed medieval — a few robber barons with robot armies instead of serfs. 'The People' will cease to exist. That is the vision towards which the oligarchy is moving the world. It doesn't even require a conspiracy, because it is plain economic sense. The world will be so much easier to control without all these wretched greedy peasants.

Write to your president with your objections, or post them here. Either will be equally effective.

The one good thing about the Trump regime is its rush into madness. They could have snuck up on people, as clever dictators do, incrementally but Chubby-T is neither clever nor patient. Single best thing he's done to bring down his own administration: appointing Musk Slasher-in-chief. They can do an enormous amount of damage and hurt an awful lot of people before any change can take place.... but....
It should provide a warning to other populations leaning hard right — Vera Mont

Yes. The madness came to the fore yesterday with the Trump-Zelensky meeting.
I've discussed it here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/973051

There is no doubt that 'an enormous amount of damage' is being carried out to 'hurt an awful lot of people'. It is more than a warning, it is world-changing.

OTOH,
the main drivers of the rightward shift are not going away just because we oppose the methods of their representatives. — Vera Mont

Exactly this.

***

It's much easier for the exploiting classes to point at bogus causes for the people's anxiety, to goad the resentful into hatred and backlash against progress than to create conditions wherein people can co-exist with a minimum of discomfort.
For example, automation could always have been appropriately supervised and taxed, working hours reduced accordingly; quality day-care and primary education provided at work-places; good public housing, sanitation, education, health-care and elder-care provided by the government; a living wage for migrant workers and non-discriminatory housing and banking regulation and genuine equal treatment of citizens under the law and in the work-force. — Vera Mont

Yes. A lot of things could have been done - and still could be done - differently. If there was a commitment to a long-term vision for the benefit of the people.
Instead, what we have are prolonged pre-electioneering pandering, changing policies to suit what the public will buy. Sound bites and media manipulating beliefs about perceived enemies.
Vanity projects whose costs keep growing and which go nowhere. Corrupt systems now accepted as 'normal'. Nobody even bothers to hide their bullying and misogyny. Those such as the vile Trump are esteemed when they talk and act in hatred.

A few progressive industrialists made sincere efforts on behalf of their workers and neighbours, but by 1914, social conscience had pretty much been drained out of capitalism. The robber barons would rather buy corrupt politicians than sound policies. — Vera Mont

Yes. The philanthropist that easily springs to mind in Andrew Carnegie. I think of him often when I despair of how today's top billionaires spend their money to empower and enrich themselves.

(November 25, 1835 – August 11, 1919) was a Scottish-American industrialist and philanthropist. Carnegie led the expansion of the American steel industry in the late-19th century and became one of the richest Americans in history.

He became a leading philanthropist in the United States, Great Britain, and the British Empire. During the last 18 years of his life, he gave away around $350 million (equivalent to $10.9 billion in 2024), almost 90 percent of his fortune, to charities, foundations and universities. His 1889 article proclaiming "The Gospel of Wealth" called on the rich to use their wealth to improve society, expressed support for progressive taxation and an estate tax, and stimulated a wave of philanthropy. — Wiki

I am sure that philanthropy is still a thing but it is well-hidden. And I am unsure how it relates to 'slavery' in any form. Or their beliefs about taxation, religion and minorities.
All I see, right now, is greed beyond belief and a deterioration of life and wellbeing.

The latest from Trump is shocking and sickening.
If, as you suggested elsewhere, the opposition is working on a strategy, then I hope they are taking good care. To get it right. Using whatever legislative means are left to deal with this mad monstrosity.
Before it is too late.

Trump is a 'clear and present danger'.
https://legalclarity.org/what-is-the-governments-definition-of-clear-and-present-danger/

Thank you for your informative and helpful exchanges.

But the literal killer is that production is becoming possible on a one off basis, with 3d printing for example. The end point for all this is indeed medieval — a few robber barons with robot armies instead of serfs. 'The People' will cease to exist. That is the vision towards which the oligarchy is moving the world. It doesn't even require a conspiracy, because it is plain economic sense. The world will be so much easier to control without all these wretched greedy peasants.

Write to your president with your objections, or post them here. Either will be equally effective. — unenlightened

Oh dear, we are in deep shit, are we not?! :sad:
At least, we can still talk about it...sharing the load and finding some harmony in music and whotnot...
Take care. Enjoy the day, if you can. :sparkle: :pray: :flower:

Oh dear, we are in deep shit, are we not?! :sad: — Amity

I forgot to mention the environment and climate change. Deep and wide, and nary a paddle.

Yes. But TPF brings us deep joy, no?! :chin:
Time for some music...
Joan Baez - We Shall Overcome (BBC Television Theatre, London - June 5, 1965)

"I may not get there with you, but I have seen the promised land." (MLK)

Herewith, a call to arms, along with a realist's mea culpa.

The philanthropist that easily springs to mind in Andrew Carnegie. — Amity

In terms of philanthropy, I commend to you one Jimmy Carter, whose foundation has worked quietly to eliminate the Guinea worm, a truly disgusting and agonising parasite. They have almost succeeded, and I hear no credit being given to the founder because, who (else) cares about Africa!

Thanks! I'll be a bit more verbose then. — unenlightened

I think N might be able to help you with that...

Human All Too Human § 415 on the Idolatry of Love... which was originally a device of the female intellect that over centuries women forgot the origin of love, and became ensnared and more deceived by it than men... basically the sophisticated slavery you're speaking about...

Love.—The love idolatry which women practise is fundamentally and originally an intelligent device, inasmuch as they increase their power by all the idealisings of love and exhibit themselves as so much the more desirable in the eyes of men. But by being accustomed for centuries to this exaggerated appreciation of love, it has come to pass that they have been caught in their own net and have forgotten the origin of the device. They themselves are now still more deceived than the men, and on that account also suffer more from the disillusionment which, almost necessarily, enters into the life of every woman—so far, at any rate, as she has sufficient imagination and intelligence to be able to be deceived and undeceived. — Nietzsche

Gay Science 68 on women molding themselves to mans ideal out of that need for love. Your quote

and enforced by the threat of rape. Uppity women are "asking for it". — unenlightened

reminds me of that last bit from 68 where some guy from the crowd says they need to educate women better (so they don't corrupt men)...

Will and Willingness.—Some one brought a youth to a wise man, and said, "See, this is one who is being corrupted by women!" The wise man shook his head and smiled. "It is men," he called out, "who corrupt women; and everything that women lack should be atoned for and improved in men—for man creates for himself the ideal of woman, and woman moulds herself according to this ideal."—"You are too tender-hearted towards women," said one of the bystanders, "you do not know them!" The wise man answered: "Man's attribute is will, woman's attribute is willingness—such is the law of the sexes, verily! a hard law for woman! All human beings are innocent of their existence, women, however, are doubly innocent; who could have enough of salve and gentleness for them!"—"What about salve! What about gentleness!" called out another person in the crowd, "we must educate women better!"—"We must educate men better," said the wise man, and made a sign to the youth to follow him.—The youth, however, did not follow him. — Nietzsche

Niet.

Seems like Nietzsche knew it better than Mill. *shrugs*

However, this morning I read about Jackson Katz and his 40-year struggle to end violence against women. More urgent than ever since Trump became the US President. Katz has written a book about his activism; how he used his 'position of influence as a straight, white man and sportsperson' to speak out. 'Changing the culture from within'. — Amity

I'm certain that Nietzsche is not relevant to the topic -- he was not a misogynist in your terms -- but he is very much a masculine philosopher. His philosophy is from the male perspective, through and through.

Whereas this thread is talking about

The issues of messaging, unchecked MAGA misogyny, and migrants came to the fore.
The growing, global threat of greedy, powerful rich men - fascistic felons, war criminals, dictating and overturning human rights. For what? To increase their global control and their own 'rights' to the Earth and its minerals at the cost of ordinary people — Amity

Which, you probably know, Nietzsche had a disdain for "ordinary people"

I'm certain that Nietzsche is not relevant to the topic -- he was not a misogynist in your terms -- but he is very much a masculine philosopher. His philosophy is from the male perspective, through and through. — Moliere

Is that why the highest presentment of man is through the doctrine of Athena? A woman? (According to Nietzsche)

Odd that a masculine philosopher would state man's highest presentment is in the doctrine of a woman...when Nietzsche asks "who but I knows Ariadne?" He's asking: who but I know the feminine instinct?

A good question for your thread here:

But not in this thread, is all I mean.

I mean we're talking about misogyny and the manosphere

misogyny, the manosphere — Amity

Nietzsche brings this up time and time again when he bashes on the Semitic idea of "woman."
Not heeding Nietzsche is just willful ignorance.

I get it you guys don't like that you have a hard time understanding Nietzsche. But he's all over this topic in his philosophy. Remember there was a time before women were seen as Sin and Corruption... there was a time before women needed to be locked away and repressed.

True.

I like Nietzsche a lot. So I'm responding in that capacity -- as the man said “The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”

What the thread is about, however, is this moment.

The issues of messaging, unchecked MAGA misogyny, and migrants came to the fore. The growing, global threat of greedy, powerful rich men - fascistic felons, war criminals, dictating and overturning human rights. For what? To increase their global control and their own 'rights' to the Earth and its minerals at the cost of ordinary people. — Amity

Nietzsche, I imagine at least, would be fine with these various struggles -- not that he'd like them, of course, but would accept them as the Will to Power.

Which seems to go against the idea that this moment is Medieval. The real Nietzsche would abhor our current circumstances, I believe. But his written philosophy -- in terms of what it does, rather than its truth -- supports this endless striving.

It's a lumpen-Nietzsche, but it's popular.

And, in that way, I don't think he's the best philosopher to deal with these issues.

Fair enough, I'll make another post to show you're wrong even here. Nietzsche details the aristocracy as responsible for allowing conditions to get so bad socialism is even an option considered...(will need to find the aphorism)

The highest and lowest are complementary to the same causes and both are required ...BGE200

Just as the Apollonian and Dionysian incite each other to higher and higher births so too do higher men and the masses... because higher men and the masses bridge over their mutual cause. Abusing the other to the point of life denial is slave morality...

Do you honestly think Nietzsche would be upset about the abused rising up to affirm the demands of their life? No. Literally what he details of master morality... but if the abused rose up to then make a system of life denial against those they overcame... yes.

But the literal killer is that production is becoming possible on a one off basis, with 3d printing for example. The end point for all this is indeed medieval — a few robber barons with robot armies instead of serfs. 'The People' will cease to exist. That is the vision towards which the oligarchy is moving the world. It doesn't even require a conspiracy, because it is plain economic sense. The world will be so much easier to control without all these wretched greedy peasants. — unenlightened

Have you read Moorcock's novel Dancers at the End of Time?
But meanwhile, the peasants are still needed to do all that buying and consuming, tax-, rent- and interest-paying. How they gonna do that when half are in law-enforcement and the other half in jail?

I am sure that philanthropy is still a thing but it is well-hidden. — Amity

Not hidden, so much as ignored. While most philantrophy throws crumbs to the poor or supports their church and highbrow arts, some is actually directed toward improved living conditions for the third world ... uh ... developing countries. They're not all evil, but the money they give is first gained by the wrong means and the spending of it feeds capitalism. That is: they suck up a huge amount of the world's natural and human resources and replenish a very small part, while perpetuating the system that caused all the misery they're trying to alleviate.

Trump is a 'clear and present danger'. — Amity

It's March. We'll soon find out whether my addled prophet had the right vision for the wrong year.

They have almost succeeded, and I hear no credit being given to the founder because, who (else) cares about Africa! — unenlightened

Bill Gates, I understand, though apparently not always in the right way. Carter was a uniquely human individual, massively underappreciated by his country. Capitalism corrupts more than transactional behaviour; it degrades language and rots minds.

What happened after women joined the work force? The people in power raised prices to match a double income. — DifferentiatingEgg

This was indeed a very crafty trick they pulled on us. Double the labor force, halve the price of labor.

But the people in power are men, and so it is men's fault.

hence

We must educate men better," said the wise man, — Nietzsche

But apparently it's not proper to speak about educating men on their patriarchal repression of women here in this thread. Even though this thread is seemingly about that.

Thank you for repeating and clarifying what this thread is about. To reinforce:

However, this morning I read about Jackson Katz and his 40-year struggle to end violence against women. More urgent than ever since Trump became the US President. Katz has written a book about his activism; how he used his 'position of influence as a straight, white man and sportsperson' to speak out. 'Changing the culture from within'.
— Amity — Moliere

The issues of messaging, unchecked MAGA misogyny, and migrants came to the fore. The growing, global threat of greedy, powerful rich men - fascistic felons, war criminals, dictating and overturning human rights. For what? To increase their global control and their own 'rights' to the Earth and its minerals at the cost of ordinary people. — Amity

It is primarily a discussion about 'this moment' of crisis as being regressive and how activists can counteract some of the main problems.
Misogyny is one of 3 issues mentioned. But more than that, it is about human rights.
So far, exchanges have been most informative and engaging:
the interlinking of history, philosophy, politics and religion. Economics, philanthropy and libertarianism.
And more!

***
The need to show leadership in opposition:

With the most powerful political leader in the world in the process of opposing much of what Katz advocates, he emphasises the need for persistence and bravery from bystanding men – a show of leadership in the absence of a leader. “We can’t tell boys that bullying is bad and then equally reward bullies like Trump in power,” Katz says. “There’s a lot of fear in the face of a rightwing populist government, but we need men to loudly oppose him, otherwise real people will be harmed. We’re living in a different world now and it’s urgent.”
— The Guardian — Amity

***
To return to the concept and practice of misogyny. It is not new but it is on the increase, especially in Trumpian circles and beyond, as previously discussed. It might be worthwhile to define it and how it is used. So, a quick wiki:

Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. It is a form of sexism that can keep women at a lower social status than men, thus maintaining the social roles of patriarchy. Misogyny has been widely practised for thousands of years. It is reflected in art, literature, human societal structure, historical events, mythology, philosophy, and religion worldwide.

An example of misogyny is violence against women, which includes domestic violence and, in its most extreme forms, misogynist terrorism and femicide. Misogyny also often operates through sexual harassment, coercion, and psychological techniques aimed at controlling women, and by legally or socially excluding women from full citizenship. In some cases, misogyny rewards women for accepting an inferior status.
[...]
Philosopher Kate Manne of Cornell University defines misogyny as the attempt to control and punish women who challenge male dominance. Manne finds the traditional "hatred of women" definition of misogyny too simplistic, noting it does not account for how perpetrators of misogynistic violence may love certain women; for example, their mothers.  Instead, misogyny rewards women who uphold the status quo and punishes those who reject women's subordinate status. Manne distinguishes sexism, which she says seeks to rationalise and justify patriarchy, from misogyny, which she calls the "law enforcement" branch of patriarchy:
[...]
Numerous influential Western philosophers have expressed ideas that have been characterised as misogynistic, including Aristotle, René Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, G. W. F. Hegel, Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, Otto Weininger, Oswald Spengler, and John Lucas. — Wiki - Misogyny

Whether the above mentioned philosophers are misogynists can be questioned. Their ideas and influence can be evaluated on their own merit. Looking back at their own time, circumstance and context. But that is another story, for another thread. Probably.

I'd be interested to hear how philosophers in general can be considered activists in the sense of making a difference to socio-cultural change. Where are they now, at this 'moment of crisis'?
Or what (practical) wisdom, imagination and energy can be brought to the table from all spheres of life?