Epilogue: The Misogyny of Everyday Life

In the prologue, I noted, “women, especially heterosexual white women, seem to enjoy ostensible and broad privileges and protections. As such, the consequences of misogyny and the resultant suffering might appear, well, inconsequential.” In the epilogue, let’s take a closer look at that statement.

To the degree that women, as a group, reap benefits, at least superficially, that other marginalized groups do not, means that the impact and effects, the costs and the residual complications of hatred operate, more or less, in the shadows. They can therefore be dismissed and minimized. In addition and as a result, the implication is widely accepted and the accusation is regularly explicit that repercussions - the effects of misogyny - are actually deserved, arising from a woman’s own actions and choices. Individuals - largely men - and society, in its institutions, laws and regulations, frequently explain away the problems and the marked impact of misogyny by blaming the victim. In this approach, the source and the consequences of misogyny reside within and with the individual rather than in the collective and the system.

Furthermore, it is a fact that many privileges and protections afforded to women as a group are only “ostensible” and “superficial” - and afforded most reliably to “heterosexual white women.” Conspicuously, today’s conversation about the misogyny of everyday life - the discussion presented in this particular issue of Psychoanalytic Inquiry - has been shaped by the voices of six white women and one white man. Nevertheless, the critical conversation demands a more heterogenous assembly, an ongoing discussion and interrogation generated by a cross-current chorus of diverse voices. A robust exchange about misogyny requires the amplification of the voices of women whose identities are formed by intersectionality: women of color, immigrant women, trans women, queer women, lesbian women, women living with disabilities, indigenous women, and others. Fo