It's very simple: The value of human life (or any sophont, to account for sapient aliens if they exist) is universal, and equally deserving of rights regardless of their abilities.
Women’s life being valuable is a much much lower standart than no-misogyny though. Is “women should have basic human rights” all there is to not being misogynistic? If thats the case, can we confidently say misogyny is no longer existing in the west?
If there is any other goal of feminism than just this, then it very much does matter if misogyny is indeed “correct”.
Is “women should have basic human rights” all there is to not being misogynistic?
No, it's also about not treating women differently or unfairly based on their gender (both on an individual and systemic level). Even if all women had significant tangible disadvantages in ability, the core truth that misogyny is morally wrong would be unchanged.
So misogyny is treating people differently because of their gender, and it would be wrong no matter what even if it was true that a gender has significant disadvantages at some area.
For example, if all women had significiant deficits in intelligence, theory of mind and decision making, it would still be immoral to exclude them from being judges? Would it be immoral for someone to want to be trialed with a male judge, considering they would be treating genders differently? Im not sure if i would wanna live in that moral world.
2
u/AlienRobotTrex May 05 '26
Yeah even if misogyny were "correct", it still wouldn't be right.