JoT re
Vincent re "Misogyny"

You say:

"Sexual violence will be misogyny as long as we value the penis over the vulva."

I take this to mean that you agree with my suggestion "that the 'misogyny' exists in the minds of the reader, in my mind and yours, not in the content itself." You explain that the reason we see two nominally opposite things as the same is that we see each case (a woman killing a man sexually and a man killing a woman sexually) as an instance of the woman's relationship to the penis (as destroyer or as victim). A hypothetical misandrist society would see each case as an example of a man's relationship to the vulva (as victim or as destroyer).

You seem to be bolstering my position, which allows me to return to the concluding question:
Does that mean that the she-demon isn't 'really' misogyny?"

Rather than be coy, I'll offer an answer to my own question. It means that the she-demon isn't "really" misogyny in the Platonic or ultimate sense. But nothing is real in the Platonic or ultimate sense, so this fact doesn't practically reflect on how real the misogyny of the man-eating she-demon is.

May 2002

Other Responses to "Misogyny"