JK Rowling reveals she is survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault

[Sheilbh]

I was just thinking about it two thoughts occured. With misognist it feels like -ist is a relatively common suffix for maybe Greek words? Sophist, etymologist, dramatist, all the other logists - psychologist, pathologist etc.

It makes me suspect that it was one of those rules of thumb that Renaissance and 17th century English writers adopted when transferring words from classical languages, which would fit given that I understand misogynist emerges in English in the 17th century - according to Wiki in the Jacobean play Swetnam the Woman-Hater (a critique of anti-feminist/misogynist pamphleteer Joseph Swetnam), which includes a character Misogynos. There was a lot of back and forth on the issue of women in the early Jacobean period when hopes in the new King James were at their highest and the reputation of the old Queen Elizabeth was probably at its lowest.

The other thought is that "ism" normally indicates a political projec/ideology. We talk about "isms" meaning, say, anarchism, communism, fascism, liberalism etc. I feel like in older books there was more use of racialism but I wonder if racism and racialism emerged as words to describe political project/ideologies defined by race especially in the early 20th century, of which there were plenty. As I say that's also present in Islamism as a political project.

[Duque de Bragança]

 
-ist as a suffix works for both Latin (artist) and Greek, though it arrived through the Latin -ista from Greek.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah. Interesting, I know nothing about classical languages, but I know there's a huge sweep of them enter English in the 16-7th century and that there were sort of informal rules adopted by different writers bringing those words in which kind of linger.

[DGuller]

The problem with -phobia for me is that it seems like a forced attempt to mock those engaged in bigotry.  I strongly suspect that a large portion of anti-gay people really aren't afraid that they're secretly gay, or afraid of anything else related to homosexuality.  They're just hostile to the lifestyle personally and intolerant enough to project it outward.

[Josquius]

What would be a better suffix?
Aggro? Averse?

[Sheilbh]

The problem with -phobia for me is that it seems like a forced attempt to mock those engaged in bigotry.  I strongly suspect that a large portion of anti-gay people really aren't afraid that they're secretly gay, or afraid of anything else related to homosexuality.  They're just hostile to the lifestyle personally and intolerant enough to project it outward.

So I hate the whole "homophobes are secretly gay" thing because it sort of suggests that the problem with homophobia is, somehow, gay people.

With homophobia in particular I suspect it's because almost all of the early language around homosexuality - and, indeed, homophobia - come from psychology. I could be wrong, but I think that word is probably a legacy of the medicalisation of gayness or transness or whatever else for most of the 20th century.

Here's an interesting paper on the origins of Islamophobia and the different terms used from the former head of the Runymede Trust (race equality think tank in the UK) and now head of the Institute of Race Relations:
http://www.insted.co.uk/anti-muslim-racism.pdf

[Duque de Bragança]

Etymologically, homophobia would be fear of the same anyways. 

PS: in psychology, an irrational fear, of course cf. gynaecophobia.

[Tonitrus]

The problem with -phobia for me is that it seems like a forced attempt to mock those engaged in bigotry.  I strongly suspect that a large portion of anti-gay people really aren't afraid that they're secretly gay, or afraid of anything else related to homosexuality.  They're just hostile to the lifestyle personally and intolerant enough to project it outward.

So I hate the whole "homophobes are secretly gay" thing because it sort of suggests that the problem with homophobia is, somehow, gay people.

With homophobia in particular I suspect it's because almost all of the early language around homosexuality - and, indeed, homophobia - come from psychology. I could be wrong, but I think that word is probably a legacy of the medicalisation of gayness or transness or whatever else for most of the 20th century.

Here's an interesting paper on the origins of Islamophobia and the different terms used from the former head of the Runymede Trust (race equality think tank in the UK) and now head of the Institute of Race Relations:
http://www.insted.co.uk/anti-muslim-racism.pdf

I think the points that paper makes on the "racism" aspect of the debate are interesting...and also difficult.  Especially as there are plenty of aspects of the Islamic religion (as there are with any religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, or Buddhism) that can, and should, be debated and criticized, but often cannot be due to the ethnic/religious/cultural borders being so muddied.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I think the key is there is debate and critique and there is irrational and no debate or critique or amoung of information will shift that person's view.

And also fundamentally I think these terms have a common meaning. Anti-semitism makes no sense. There are plenty of Jews who are not semites, there are plenty of semites who are not Jews. But we all know what it means and if you hear someone going "ackshally Arabs are semites" chances are if you carry on that conversation you're going to find they're pretty anti-semitic.

[Tonitrus]

Yeah I think the key is there is debate and critique and there is irrational and no debate or critique or amoung of information will shift that person's view.

And also fundamentally I think these terms have a common meaning. Anti-semitism makes no sense. There are plenty of Jews who are not semites, there are plenty of semites who are not Jews. But we all know what it means and if you hear someone going "ackshally Arabs are semites" chances are if you carry on that conversation you're going to find they're pretty anti-semitic.

I agree...it is very much the same as the "all lives matter" spittle.  Yes, of course all lives matter...we all know that, but that rebuke is almost only ever made in order to reject out-of-hand any legitimate grievances of the other side.

[Duque de Bragança]

Yeah I think the key is there is debate and critique and there is irrational and no debate or critique or amoung of information will shift that person's view.

And also fundamentally I think these terms have a common meaning. Anti-semitism makes no sense. There are plenty of Jews who are not semites, there are plenty of semites who are not Jews. But we all know what it means and if you hear someone going "ackshally Arabs are semites" chances are if you carry on that conversation you're going to find they're pretty anti-semitic.

Anti-semitism makes sense once you know the agenda of the people who coined the term ; hostility to Jews based on "racial" grounds, not on religious ones (anti-judaism).

Muddling of ethnic/religious/cultural borders is done for political/communalist reasons as well.

[The Minsky Moment]

Semitic is a language family; a "semite" is anyone who speaks a semitic language which thus excludes much of diaspora Jewry.

[Valmy]

Semitic is a language family; a "semite" is anyone who speaks a semitic language which thus excludes much of diaspora Jewry.

The term is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

[Razgovory]

I think the points that paper makes on the "racism" aspect of the debate are interesting...and also difficult.  Especially as there are plenty of aspects of the Islamic religion (as there are with any religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, or Buddhism) that can, and should, be debated and criticized, but often cannot be due to the ethnic/religious/cultural borders being so muddied.

What is it you wanted to say that you are being prevented from saying?

[DGuller]

I think the points that paper makes on the "racism" aspect of the debate are interesting...and also difficult.  Especially as there are plenty of aspects of the Islamic religion (as there are with any religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, or Buddhism) that can, and should, be debated and criticized, but often cannot be due to the ethnic/religious/cultural borders being so muddied.

What is it you wanted to say that you are being prevented from saying?

I guess the point is that you can't say it, which makes it a very frustrating thing to complain about.  Everyone supporting the self-censorship can deliver a cheap KO such as this, and now you have to choose between being evasive and being dangerously uncensored.