Ontological Critique: Is misogyny Being or Construct

Misogyny as Metaphysical Construct, Not Concrete Entity

Ontologically, misogyny is not a concrete phenomenon like a material object or even a historically fixed institution. It is a moral abstraction, often constructed retrospectively. What we call misogyny today is not necessarily what has bee expressed, whether, as feminists caim, in literature, art, or behavior, raising the question: does misogyny exist as a stable ontological category across time?

If misogyny is always defined from the standpoint of modern moral judgment, it becomes anachronistic. For example, labeling Aristotle or medieval theology misogynistic imposes a modern moral ontology onto fundamentally different worldviews, mainly such that can be seen as misanthropic. This undermines historical integrity and reveals that misogyny may not be an ontological constant, but rather a moral-political invention with shifting contours.

Ontological Asymmetry Between “Misogyny” and “Misandry”

A key ontological concern is that misogyny has acquired a sort of metaphysical weight and moral substance—as if it is real, grave, and ever-present—while misandry is either denied, trivialized, or deemed reactionary. This reveals a selective ontology: one form of gendered negativity is considered real and structural, while the other is seen as illusory or non-systemic.

This asymmetry suggests that misogyny's ontological status is not rooted in universal truth, but in ideological valuation—a society’s projection of what is morally sacred (e.g. female dignity) versus what is expendable (e.g. male critique or suffering).

Is Misogyny an Essence or a Function?

Another ontological question: Is misogyny an essential quality (hatred of women), or a functional relationship (enforcement of gender norms, as per Kate Manne)?

If it is essential, it implies a timeless psychological or metaphysical trait in individuals or cultures—raising deterministic and essentialist problems (e.g. are men naturally misogynistic?).

If it is functional, then its being is dependent on systems, norms, and interpretations—meaning it has no autonomous ontology of its own. This makes misogyny relational, not ontologically grounded. It exists only within a moral framework that deems certain actions or thoughts misogynistic.

Thus, misogyny is not an ontological constant, but a category constructed to interpret relations of power and morality within a particular social system.

Ontology and Gynocentric Moral Hierarchies

In many modern societies, particularly liberal-democratic ones, the being of misogyny is tied to gynocentric moral hierarchies—systems in which the female subject is ontologically elevated as the bearer of moral suffering, dignity, and vulnerability.

In this system, misogyny exists not as the oppression of women, but as the violation of a sacred feminine ontology. It functions similarly to blasphemy in religious structures: it is not an alleged social injustice, but as what is perceived as an existential offense against the moral order. Thus, misogyny’s ontology is quasi-sacred—a moral absolute protected by emotional force.

This renders misogyny more than an alleged descriptor of hatred; it becomes a transcendent moral principle whose violation evokes shame, ostracism, or symbolic death. As such, its ontological power is immense—but also ideologically inflated and selectively deployed.

Where structure collapses, thought rebuilds.

Peering through the veils of power and illusion.

Telegon Project: A new cartography of consciousness