misandry vs misogyny
N.B. misandry is not real because men are not systemically oppressed (uninternalize your reddit MRA today: men suffer some drawbacks under the patriarchy but ultimately still maintain it due to the large amount of privileges they receive under it!)
As a white AMAB, I have to deal with both misandry and reverse racism. It's tough. Prayers up in the chat
Yes but have you considered that I'm not getting laid (more important)
I always feel uneasy about discourse supporting misandry (even though I am a misandrist for all intents and purposes).
This stems from me being an AMAB non-binary person, honestly. I am not a man, I am definitely systemically oppressed, but some people with misandrist outlooks will have an essentialist mindset and use it to hate me as if I'm not systemically oppressed (simply because cis men aren't; they equate me with cis men).
As a non-binary person in particular, I feel this strongly because most people don't take non-binary people as valid, so I'm effectively interpreted as just a "weird" variant of a cis man even though I'm on HRT and seeking surgeries. Not so shockingly, I find that this happens to binary trans women too but to a lesser extent.
I also don't believe that a lot of mainstream feminists are actually opposed to transphobia, so that heightens my fears too.
Don't worry, TERFs aren't being misandric towards you. They're too busy allying with reactionary men and being misogynistic to trans feminine people instead.
It's not just TERFs. That's why I said I don't believe that a lot of mainstream feminists are actually opposed to transphobia. I'm talking about liberals when I say this. Since pretending to give a shit about oppression is a major part of being a liberal, this isn't shocking, though.
I didn't say I wanted to stop being a misandrist; that's far beyond the point. Is your reading comprehension there?
Racism certainly has gendered aspects to it that some populations of women can exploit to do violence on other populations of men, but since this form of discrimination isn't universally applicable, I wouldn't call it misandry (because misogyny is universally applicable to all women, so there's a false equivalence).
How is that not more a form of racism?
"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."
---Margaret Atwood
i like that quote in a 101 sort of way, but we should be advanced enough here to clarify that men are afraid they'll kill themselves.
*divorce them
Well, actually, when a woman divorces a man, the man's life expectancy drops precipitously because men are terrible at taking care of themselves. In many ways that's worse than me committing violence towards women directly!
lmao when did we get a Zane Lofton emote? I love this site
I was looking for a good smug and he was there
This site is protected by beefbrain shield pro
misandry is not real because men are not systemically oppressed
Structural misandry doesn't exist, but "misandry isn't real" is not something I'd agree with. It exists on an individual level. It's just not a real systemic issue.
There's definitely cases of structural misandry, it's just not as nearly as common as structural misogyny. There are fields of work where men are definitely discriminated against/less preferred. Divorce/child custody is historically slanted towards women, although that's downstream of historical misogynistic forces (women having trouble with employment, pay equity, etc) and it's become more equitable. I think you could make the argument that combat military service in some countries being restricted solely to men is a form of structural misandry.
Just to reiterate, I am not trying to do gender wars. I am gender Switzerland.
When you have a clear opressor side and a clear opressed side, you do not bothsides things, that's literally all lives matter tier shit. The points you are making are key talking points of manosphere chuds arguing against feminism, and that kind of shit is coming up on here over and over again, not only by one day old accounts, but by people who've been posting here for ages.
It would be fucking ridiculous how open to antifeminist, misogynist reasoning hexbear is if it wasn't so obnoxiously common even in leftist spaces. Don't be surprised when women are "misandrist", never trusting a man is a normal, necessary survival instinct for us.
Idk to me it still makes more sense to frame it in the context of feminism internalized misogyny
it really seems my tomboy wife who was influenced by her dad to be a boy because he wanted a boy and thus she inititially hated women (they treated her badly growing up, continued to hate them and uhh say weird stuff like women are inherently manipulative when she is moreso really headstrong and act before you think) and when she hated men it wasn't for stuff you could not explain by sayinf they were chuds or cruddy.
Where as with most hatred towards women does seem to be poorly explained without the conception of a patriarchy or as women being considered or once considered property of men.
Do none of you people arguing for the existence of misandry understand that “a woman was mean to me once” is not in any way remotely comparable to the systematic undervaluing of women as people for the benefit of men. If you’re a man and you ever feel the need to express a hot take on how misandry totally is a real problem, you have to remember first that you are benefitting from patriarchy right now whether you know it or not and like it or not.
Do none of you people arguing for the existence of misandry understand that “a woman was mean to me once” is not in any way remotely comparable to the systematic undervaluing of women as people for the benefit of men
They seriously don't. Like, they have no idea how it is out there. As a trans woman, i at least sorta kinda know both sides - i always completely sucked at being a guy and could rarely if ever actually enjoy the decidedly guyish parts of my pre-transition life, but i can still safely say that i know what it's like to have male privilege, to be the man in a straight relationship, to be able to hang out with the boys at / after work, to be your parents' son instead of their daughter, to be with the guys instead of the girls at a social gathering, to walk home at night when you're read as a dude vs walking home at night when you're read as a girl, and they just don't. And because they are the cultural default and their experiences are always the ones being centered, it stays that way. A huge part of how male suprematism works is that guys, average guys who aren't Andrew Tate and think of themselves as not being toxic douchbros, are still being completely oblivious to how different a woman's day to day life is from theirs. Most of them would not be able to make the same amount of use of women in their professional, private, sexual and emotional life if they understood how much we are still subjected to serve men in nowadays much more subtle, but still very noticeable ways. And if you point it out to them, if you point out that the difference between them and Andrew Tate is in most cases gradual, not absolute, they do everything in their power to reject that realization, because our servitude is so damn useful to them.
you have to remember first that you are benefitting from patriarchy right now whether you know it or not and like it or not.
The benefit is relative. Patriarchy does harm to everyone, even men, but elevates men's social power over women. Perceived "misandry" is just a latent side effect of men wielding that social power to the detriment of women.
Misandry definitely isn't a systemic issue but I feel the need to push back to say: men are systemically oppressed. The whole point of the concept of patriarchy is that while the form is different both men and women can be both oppressed and oppressors under it. Part of the entire reason why MRAs are completely full of shit is that basically all of the issues they are concerned with, to the extent that they are real issues, (ie family court) can all be traced back to patriarchy and capitalism.
Any oppressor-oppressed relationship inherently limits the human condition, but the oppressor always has more to lose than to gain. Feminism is good for men as humans as they will be able to wear whatever they want and have whatever sort of relationships they want with whoever. But it also means giving up higher wages, rape, etc. so it's no wonder a lot (not all) of men don't see feminism as a net benefit to themselves.
I would argue that it's quite reductive to suggest that having 'higher wages" is more to lose than being able to have "whatever sort of relationship they want".
I think it's accurate to say that men tend to perceive themselves as having more to lose than gain under feminist liberation...but i would argue that perception itself is based on falsehoods steming from patriarchy.
But it also means giving up higher wages
lol who's getting high wages?
any economic damage to "men" would be far outweighed by the gains we all make under socialism outside of a small handful of people everyone on this website would kill if we could.
I think it is systemic but not the conscious focus. The artificial elevation of men and maleness under the patriarchy means that those who don't reach that elevation are seen as lesser beings, and even those are elevated, are often elevated for the wrong reasons, such as drafting men to war because we are “superior fighters.”
Misandry is a feature of patriarchy, but MRA types don’t want to talk about that. Whenever the topic of drafts come up, their first instinct is to complain how women get special treatment and aren’t required to fight, not that fighting for capitalist wars is bad. And even as they complain about women not having to fight, they uphold the same misandrist views by opposing integrating women into the military because they’re “weak,” therefore more men must be fed to the meat grinder to uphold this glorious system.
89 comments
We really do get some repugnant trolls every now and again
I am gonna say it. Women being scared of or mean to men isn't mysendry. It is caused by misogyny.
If there wasn't misogyny that women would have to try to dodge that wouldn't need to happen. Hold that L
I don't like the both siding of misandry vs misogyny; men's suffering (at least in the u.s, but it can absolutely apply to the globe) can be usually categorized as due to white supremacy, capitalism, or the patriarchy. Misandry is probably <1%.
Women can suffer from all three aforementioned categories as well as misogyny.
Misandry exists in non-systemic forms and the line of logic that says otherwise, in addition to being just plain incorrect, is easy for liberals to weaponize against us and against the concept of solidarity. I have seen this way of thinking used many times to split up groups rather than focusing on education and solidarity. It also runs contrary to several socialist analyses of this topic that are essentially dialectical where misogyny creates the basis for misandry, for example. This tweet is a good example of it. Patriarchal oppression creates (justified) disproportionate fear and distrust of men among non-men. Men must then also contend with being feared and distrusted.
And as you can see from "the discourse", men are often not equipped with ways to constructively deal with this reality and go down the reactionary path that tells them it's very unfair to them but without placing blame on the patriarchy itself - nor the underlying material basis for the patriarchy. It's our job to provide our own, more correct understanding of what is happening that pipelines the people who could move in our direction and have solidarity with us.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting bending over backwards to chase those that often benefit from oppression. Sometimes people overcorrect and make their spaces crappy and tolerate reactionary sentiment to be "inclusive" (I've seen it!). But it's self-limiting and counterrevolutionary to fail to educate and include those who do seek solidarity and working in our fight. We are much stronger together. Take the money from class traitors. Take the white people willing to put their bodies on the line for BLM. Take the Christians standing between Proud Boys and your Palestinian encampment. Or at least, try to educate them.
Oh another thing for the "misandry is totally real it's just not systemic" people: "misandry" as a term is itself antifeminist. It's a manosphere and mra chud term that manosphere and mra chuds use as a weapon against feminists. As a comparison: you can say that "all lives matter" has a literal meaning outside the context of its use as a reactionary dogwhistle, but in the real world that's the way its used and you can't separate it from that use. Find me a place where "misandry" is discussed as a serious thing that isn't a reactionary space. You can't, but good luck. Ironically, the idea of "misandry" is weaponized against women in a misogynistic way by denying them even the ability to express anger at their oppression. If you're going to go to bat for the idea of "misandry" as a real, coherent issue, even if you add the caveat that it's not the same as misogyny, just know that you're going to bat on the side of manosphere and mra chuds.
Women who do actually "hate men" would not hate men if men did not systemically oppress them in every aspect of life. This shit doesn't exist in a pool of neutral generalized bigotry that could be theoretically directed anywhere and just happens to be worse towards women. We live in a world that oppresses women. And a world in which reactionaries have always tried to discredit feminism by painting it as being motivated by hatred towards men. (And don't bother bringing up TERFs/radfems, who direct their "hatred of men" towards being misogynistic towards trans women and enforcing patriarchal bioessentialism + cissexism.)
(Totally did not mean to delete my last comment, it was a complete accident, so I'll just rewrite it as best as I remember it.)
Oh no I totally understand, that is what I meant by "enforcing patriarchal bioessentialism + cissexism" if it wasn't clear! Gender essentialism is really harmful and antithetical to feminism, as it relies on upholding misogynistic views rather than challenging them (like when TERFs argue that trans women shouldn't compete with cis women using misogynistic ideas of women as "weaker".)
I am totally not an advocate for political lesbianism or radical feminism, and please let me know what parts of my phrasing made you uncomfortable, I'll edit them and do some self-crit. And I definitely need to pick up Whipping Girl soon.
https://archive.org/details/whippinggirltran0000sera_y0i6
Or
https://www.ebookhunter.net/whipping-girl-by-l-jacobs-epub/
These are very different books
I saw a short video the other day about a woman saying "alright we'll just call men males from now on" and then the guy doing a response said okay and made his video.
I think this fully highlights the point about how dehumanizing language from people with power in society is never equivalent. I'm not saying it's not rude or it won't hurt someone's feelings but the fact that a man can shrug and go on with his day vs. actually threats of implied violence that often undertone the other shows why these two things are different.
Misandry in its basic form is real though, just like so called “reverse racism.” Even the OP says so, they’re just not equal. But You don’t need to care about power structures to fundamentally hate someone for a particular characteristic. If you belong to the dominant group, you likely won’t really care about it outside of individual occurrences. Like if someone calls you a cracker or yells at you about manspreading, you’re just gonna be annoyed, offended. But if someone calls you the n word or cat calling you on an empty bus, you’re gonna fear for your life, as the OP states.
I'm glad to see so many nice people valiantly proposing misandry exists even if not to the same degree as misogyny.
Except of course OP is right, misandry isn't real, for the same reason anti-white racism isn't. Social inconvenience on a personal level does not add up to be comparable to actual bigotry, therefore some analogous concept doesn't exist.
The problem with this website is that as a reddit successor state it still has some of the problems associated with it. I'm certainly happy to say it's still much better than the reception I get talking about misogyny on r*ddit but it's still enough to render me uncomfortable when issues like this come up
Purge time!!! 😁😁😁
Social inconvenience on a personal level does not add up to be comparable to actual bigotry, therefore some analogous concept doesn't exist.
Thank you for saying this!!!
Men, whites, cis, etc. like to pretend the natural suspicion of the dominant group subjugating others is parallel to the subjugation.
"Misandry isn't real because there's no systemic backing" my god will hexbear stop generating dumbass takes
In before I get called a reactionary and some user pretends I'm some "misandry is JUST AS BAD" moron like the Divorce Guy in the OP just because I think it's fucking stupid to tie in "has a systemic and institutionalized backing" to the definition of a fucking word, like the very concept of misandry is unreal and cannot exist unless you're living in the Feminist Femocracy of Manhatea
I think it's fucking stupid to tie in "has a systemic and institutionalized backing" to the definition of a fucking word
But that's how oppression is defined in serious, intersectional theory and has been for some time.
cool story, but "misandry" isn't "the oppression of men"
literally half this website just making up definitions for shit for the other half to get mad about and going HUH WHY'S THERE 100 COMMENTS every time it happens
because you don't need a constitution enshrining bigotry for the concept of bigotry to be real (this comes off as very lib parliamentarian rules type shit to me honestly) but I guess you disagree so my comments get removed and I get called a racist reactionary divorce dad or wtf ever
I feel like "misandry doesn't exist" discourse is conflating privilege with prejudice.
Misogyny and misandry describe prejudices, which anybody can have about any kind of people. The unilateral system of prejudice we have that privileges men and codifies misogyny is called patriarchy.
Misogyny is an element of patriarchy, and misandry is not, but both of these also exist as their own concepts aside from patriarchy
I think this line of reasoning implies that 'reverse racism' does actually exist, which I think is a pretty unserious notion.
[A]mong scholars on the left and people who think about hate crimes and oppression in the state, you know, there’s different schools of thought around what it means to talk about hate crimes and to track hate crimes... I think that today in the US, it’s probably not really institutionalized antisemitism. There’s not really barriers to accessing housing, jobs, other resources for Jews. And Jews have a good amount of access to protection by the state and everything. So like, it’s not institutionalized, but there still is this antisemitism that can flare up and cause violence and especially coming from a lot of these white supremacist and right-wing neo-Nazi type groups.
It's a better take to define racism as most people do -- prejudice based on racial animus -- then analyze how institutional power is used to insulate white people from harm while magnifying the harm racism does to people of color.
Sounds to me like they're trying to draw a distinction between situational prejudice and systemic prejudice, and yeah situational prejudice that hurts feelings is a very lesser beast compared to its systemic counterpart
N.B. misandry
I gotta support nonbinary misandrists
Thanks for supporting the gang
Time to check the modlog
a little disappointed to see only one account bonked
there are definitely a few others in this thread who deserve it
Byeah :/ the last one we had was way more productive.
Edit: BABE WAKE UP, new modlog activity just dropped
Many people are saying this.
I've always believed that these Firstname8Numbers usernames on twitter were bots or psyops. Something's going on with them, it's not a name any person would choose, it's the kind of name you mass generate.
Some of y'all likely just brought a purge upon yourselves with this thread.
This was a sting operation
Women will kill you too, but usually it's because you abused them to the point where they snapped. As opposed to men who will kill you just because you don't want to suck their pee pee
Women will also kill you if the woman is Kristi Noem and you are a puppy.
There's doubts about that trial, actually. The only evidence is circumstantial, she was always on when a baby died. Except, because they were short staffed, she had to always be on when complications arose. There's no objective evidence to prove she did anything wrong.
She might have been thrown under the bus to cover up short staffing
It's also sexist to ignore systemic motivations for things to point out outliers. We're both sexist this blessed day, yay!
i mean there are female soldiers in the IDF so yes
#girlboss
Mods need to ban the incels in this thread.
"If it's not systematic it doesn't exist" doesn't make sense and is a losing argument, anyway. You don't have to stake out the complete opposite position of reactionary weirdos to refute them.
Unless you have a better explanation, you have to now believe anti-white racism, heterophobia, cisphobia, etc. are all real too.
First, I'm not talking about imagined or trivial griecances. Obviously "she didn't talk to me at the bar, that's misandry" is bullshit.
But if a guy is passed over for hiring or promotion because the job is traditionally regarded as a woman's job, or is assigned less-desirable work on the basis of gender, yeah, that's misandry, even if it isn't systematic, and even though women face far more significant (and systematic) prejudice. Does "if it's not systematic it doesn't exist" mean that prejudice didn't happen, and didn't adversely effect someone's employment? If that prejudice did happen, why would we not talk about it using the word that describes that type of prejudice? "If it's not systematic it doesn't exist" is nonsensical.
It's also just a losing argument. It's extremely easy to dispute "this thing we have a word for doesn't even exist." It's much harder to dispute "women face far more prejudice than men," and then the conversation includes all the types of prejudice women face, which should be the focus anyway.
Those are all real they're just far less common and are minor in comparison to their "complement". They tend to be an internalized reaction to that complement even, of recognizing who primarily targets you and makes you unsafe.
They lack systemic power but that doesn't change whether they exist as prejudices and in the ways we interact with one another.
There are also situations in which localized power structures for them do exist. Small groups like clubs or sports teams. Obviously a smaller impact but still real and still alienating.
138 comments.
Oh no.
Rightoids are the real misandrists. It’s the soft wokeness of low expectations.
They claim they like us and want to “help” us, but all of their “help” is just special treatment because they think we are too stupid to compete with women.
I never liked that article because its message seems to be that we should make it easier for trans women to stay in the closet. Also, there's an unduly focus on internet interactions and politically-minded undergraduate students – that's a method with which you can make any political movement look ridiculous and extreme. Like, I can't remember the last time I heard a strong anti-male opinion expressed in earnest (and I've never seen an academic feminist work in which a contemporary author was dismissed for being/seeming male). I feel like the liberal egalitarianism the author ends up advocating for is already the mainstream opinion on discrimination, and the idea that trans women should not transition and instead sublimate their desire into higher things is certainly also popular enough.
The real misandry was inside the house - men using toxic masculinity to attack other men is misandrist. For this reason, feminism benefits men too.
What's typically called 'toxic masculinity' (that is to say the policing of "men" 's gender by other men) is actually just transmisogyny once you deconstruct it. men police other men for effeminating themselves, any step towards what might be considered "womanly" will be brutally punished.
The drawbacks men suffer from under patriarchy are also all directly linked to how they're broken and molded for their role as opressors. The suffering of men under the patriarchy is inseperable from how they are trained to inflict suffering upon others. There is no non-reactionary activism for men's rights that isn't just a specific angle of feminism, the one that is concerned with understanding and overcoming toxic masculinity.
I can barely talk to people and almost never leave my house, what makes me “trained to inflict suffering upon others”?
If it doesn’t apply to you why even comment?
you failed your training then 😔
Not that women who are bad at talking to people don't exist but you can rest assured this inability would not have been tolerated by whatever parenting or social pressures existed when you were growing up if you were a girl/woman.
probably your immediate reaction to defend yourself and your gender. If you hadn't been trained, your knee jerk reaction would be to look for ways to accept a viewpoint like that, rather than to poke a hole in it. I know it sounds serious and scoldy, but just let it sit with you for a while.
Perhaps I'm projecting, but I noticed it was something I was guilty of at times.
For starters, you're really good at immediately trying to silence women criticizing the patriarchy and centering yourself in a conversation about the systemic opression of women. I'd hazard a guess that traditional concepts of masculinity where men have to be the strong stoics working through every problem on their own at least contribute to your problems, but in spite of patriarchy having harmed you that badly, you still run to its defense in the expected ways like the good pupper you are.
It's not an exact process, but the result of social conditioning -- the outcomes differ a little for everyone. I can't speak to your personal experience, but a culture that expects men to cut themselves off from their feelings, to never cry or show vulnerability, to treat women as some distinct other? It can't help.