Too often there is this separation we invent where misogyny is a ubiquitous tool of patriarchy while misandry is somehow separate. This becomes so intense that many are not even able to admit that misandry is even theoretically possible, and even if it’s undeniable it is still seen as highly irrelevant to patriarchy.
But misandry does advance patriarchy and it is a force that intensifies misogyny.
Consider homophobia. This is an obvious case where misandry advances heretopatriarchy. Certain men can entrench their status through an infrastructure of hatred against homosexual men that can be accessed by nearly everyone else as well.
Consider transphobia. Another obvious realm where misandry is at play. Trans men are shown hatred in ways that are unique to the experience of cis men, and these experiences drive cis heteronormativity.
Consider how our actions and ideas impact the world. If we live in denial of misandry we live in denial of patriarchy. Denying misandry does not make you a quality feminist. It does not make you theoretically sound. Hating men just gets in the way of challenging patriarchy.
Consider how misandry enforces gender roles. Misandrous discourse functions to discipline people. When misandry is denied, there is almost always an element of “you have to man up, because women are weak.” The narrative is familiar; women are subjected to patriarchal violence and are thus too hysterical to have sound or reasonable options about men, thus, men must internalize misandrous attitudes out of sheer emotional intelligence and masculine willpower. The men who fail to do this are weak, unable to maintain a rational, stoic attitude and are thus lesser, unmasculine men. Men who can master their performance of masculinity in a self-denying or sacrificial way will benefits from misandry but will certainly be thoroughly disciplined by it.
Women, other non men genders,and queer communities often play a role in policing masculinity for patriarchy which may obfuscate the patriarchal power at play. This ultimately reinforces misogyny by haphazardly enforcing binaries, devaluing feminity, and promoting a supremacist view of masculinity.
Let me paint a situation. Imagine a comedian making a joke about their trans wife; that she removed the worst part of her–being a man. Everyone laughs in support of trans women and implicitly they laugh AT trans men and cis men. Next joke is about how stupid bisexual women are for dating men, how they make the queer community worse.
Now imagine you are a man who wants a little clarity in life. How should you feel about such language which is clearly both misandrous and misogynistic? How should you feel that it is directed at you, as a man? I’ll tell you:
You should feel safe because you are a man. If you don’t feel safe it’s because you are a weak man, incapable of performing.
I think what you’re touching on is that patriarchy is a dehumanizing mode of doing things and it dehumanizes men in its ways, not just women. Whether any of that qualifies as “misandry” largely seems to be a matter of phrasing and terminology, and based on the argument some of making, the idea seems to be that systemic misandry cannot be real under patriarchy for much the same reasons that systemic racism against white people cannot be real under white supremacism (aka: the institution of whiteness); because the system is based on the one group being the superior and others the inferior, so it would be contradictory for the “superior” group to be treated like “inferior” on a system level.
That said, the dehumanizing means men can be viewed as disposable (such as in wars, in riskier jobs, etc.) and their emotions (which every human being has in a complex range of it) get reduced to anger and maybe joy and that’s about it. In order to fulfill the role of the “superior”, they are reduced to caricature. Notably, if they refuse this, patriarchy compares them to women, such as in calling them a “pussy”, “emotional”, etc. As far as I can tell, the patriarchal “disciplining” boils down to “don’t act like a woman” (the “inferior” in the view of patriarchy), rather than “don’t be a shitty man.”
How a casual comment like “men suck” factors into that is maybe a bit confusing. I think that’s more of a pushback against patriarchy than it is an expression of it. But in a place like the US, we have this weird between stuff sometimes where people are sort of pushing back in their language, but the systems aren’t being challenged properly. So you might have someone who says that men suck and what they’re really trying to say is that the monstrous caricature of a human being men get reduced to behaving as under patriarchy is horrific to deal with, but that’s a lot to put into words and express - and putting it that way also has some risk in making it sound like I’m absolving men of responsibility for their actions.
I do think it’s probably important to make a distinction on terms like man and woman, masculine and feminine, in what these things mean in the context of patriarchy and what they mean outside of it. To be a patriarchal man is a picture of a monster, essentially. I think it can be confusing at times what it means to be one beyond that because of how patriarchy takes over the definitions and conception of masculine and feminine. This further gets confused by the gender binary enforcement and the exclusion of nonbinary and the like. I don’t have a great insight there, but I do think one of the best things those of us who are men can do is allow ourselves to be human, make emotions more conscious and regulated, and in that process, get better at not taking things personally that aren’t truly; notably, this does not mean being “stoic” and “pretending something that hurts our feelings doesn’t impact us.” It means processing any hurt and then understanding where something came from, and not assuming it’s about us. The same as what a mature woman would do, which is just a human thing of dealing with emotions and what they mean.
For example, when a woman says “men suck”, that might hurt some men’s feelings. The patriarchal instinct would be to say “I don’t care” and try to ignore it like a robot (which will often fail and lead to resentment because we aren’t robots). The human thing would be to acknowledge and process if it does hurt, and then understand that the woman is probably saying this because of lifelong shitty experiences with men and that it’s about that pain and the system behind it, not about you as an individual. If you were the one who hurt them, that’s different and you need to take some responsibility for what you do as any human being does, but if it wasn’t you, then it’s not really about you. What they are upset about is the patriarchal man and the patriarchal man is a twisted way of being that you’re better off not being anyway. You aren’t self-hating to agree with their upset. You can, like them, despise the monster and support humanization.
I think you’re making good points. I do feel like there is a need to highlight the superstructure at play there.
The patriarchy thing is the same thing as in any other artificial bipolar warscene.
As socialism just brillant but banally puts: men and women are equal. That is how you destroy the superstructure.
In capitalist totalitarianism (the empire), men get their domains of total domination and women “get theirs as well if they fight hard enough for it” (not really and i’m not defending it). This is how it works with states as well. Instead of having people decide their fate, they get small areas of “control” instead of just equality with others.
Its the same as antisemitism (and racism in general). Hating jews is not warranted just because you have had bad experiences, although it is understandable on an individual level.
Now transpose this to a group that is 50% of earths inhabitants. The problem isnt (imo) the unbreakable patriarchy but class warfare utilizing infinite bipolar wars.
Its always pit one against the other.
And discriminating someone for their bodily features is discrimination. “All men” is discrimination, no matter the size or the dominance of the group. Its not all whites, all jews, not even all israelis (although its cruelly many). Its just another method of keeping people from advancing away from class dominance.
Oh, but it is all billionaires, btw. Every, single, one.
You are getting very mixed reactions to this post because you are using incorrect terminology, and misunderstanding some things, but also are seeing some real problems. Patriarchy does hurt men too. As all oppression hurts the opressor. But that is not because of “misandry”.
Misandry is hatred of men. Because they are men.
If you hate a gay man for being gay that is homophobia not misandry. If you hate a trans man for being trans that is transphobia not misandry. If you hate a black man for being black that is racism not misandry.
You are taking misandry to mean any prejudice against a man. That is not what it is. Just like if you hate a lesbian for being gay its homophobia not misogyny. etc.
A man will never experience actual systemic hardship simply due to being a man under a patriarchal system. Men can experience systemic hardship for OTHER reasons though. That is not misandry.
The strict gender binary, and pressure for men to be masculine and women to be feminine is also not misandry. The term for that is heteronormativity.
This is why you get so much push back. You are having a communication problem.
What you should be focusing on is how the act of oppression itself harms everyone. I think that is what youre trying to get at. If you can refine your language, and viewpoint a bit i believe you will have a much more positive reaction to the points you are trying to make.
For example. A white person in a racist society. They may not be able to love people of another race openly, or have friends of another race, or act in certain ways that are deemed ‘non-white’, or various other things.
None of these are anti white racism. They are restrictions placed on the oppressing group by themselves in order to maintain the otherization of the oppressed group.
Intersectionality can make understanding things like this in the real world a bit confusing sometimes. So while this might seem obvious to you in this context that may be why you feel differently about this same phenomena as it relates to partiarchy.
I hope that explained it well enough.
Because “misandry” is not real.
Men are not oppressed just by being men. Whatever ‘hate’ men may experience for their maleness is totally irrelevant by every metric. Men aren’t subjected to abuse, exclusion, violence, etc. on a social or institutional level by any serious percentage just for the ‘crime’ of being men expressly because being a man isn’t a crime.
You are rewarded for being a man. You are celebrated for being a man. You are empowered for being a man. This is true at all levels of society and it’s why we live under patriarchy - the rule of men.
You might be oppressed for some other factor - such as being gay or trans - while being a man and the nature of that oppression may look different from how women or enbies are treated but you will never be oppressed just for being a man by itself.
Masculinity is a cult of male worship. Men aren’t excluded from holding power in the sexual hierarchy just for being men; they will be excluded on other grounds like race, class, sexuality, or how they express their gender (i.e. not conforming to the ‘ideal’ masculine standard).
Misogyny is prejudice + power. Misandry is just prejudice with no power behind it making it an irrelevant social phenomenon. If the worst thing a man can face for being a man is mean words then he is not oppressed by any conceivable metric. Misogyny is a real thing that actually harms and kills; misandry is not and does not.
You may as well be talking about ‘heterophobia’, ‘cisphobia’, or ‘anti-white racism’ because that would make just as much sense. You can’t oppress the oppressor class.
I think a large reason why these conversations keep happening is that many people fail to grasp this point, and it results in people talking past each other.
Many take “misandry is not real” to mean that no prejudice or situation negatively affects a man for being a man. This is then contrasted with personal experiences of toxic masculinity, negative social experiences mostly unique to men, and experiences of feeling excluded from some circles due to being a man, etc.
Some men would then think to themselves “how could you say that ‘misandry’ is not real when I had all these negative personal experiences?”, unaware that these experiences don’t translate to a systemic form of oppression.
You may as well be talking about ‘heterophobia’, ‘cisphobia’, or ‘anti-white racism’ because that would make just as much sense. You can’t oppress the oppressor class.
That’s pretty much it in a nutshell.
Though I would say that I’m still somewhat sympathetic to people expressing points like OP because if you’re not aware of this, then you feel like all your personal experiences and hardships are invalidated. Especially given that most of the time when people try to explain this point, it’s done pretty aggressively and antagonistically. Can’t say I would blame people airing their grievances against an oppressing force, but I can see how some people would feel victimised by it.
The antagonistic attitudes that some feminists demonstrate when talking about these issues is entirely understandable tbh.
Most feminists are women (obviously) and womens’ opinions, perspectives, needs, wants, & feelings are regularly being dismissed by our patriarchal society. The lack of value in our words, thoughts, and experiences lead to regular abuse, abandonment, isolation, and gaslighting. This is doubly so for feminists - who expressly reviled & ridiculed often by the public & institutions alike.
Naturally this leads to frustration, bitterness, and hostility. We get tired of being mocked and ignored while trying to discuss the nature of our oppression, its origins, and how to resolve it.
I don’t and can’t blame feminists who are more confrontational. I know what their feeling and I get it. The onus is on men to start listening to women if they want women to talk to them about womens’ liberation and gender equality.
Yes, like I said, I wouldn’t blame them. What I mean is that, regardless of blame or finger pointing, the people caught in the crossfire are still affected by it.
This isn’t talking about priorities, blame, or what issues should take focus on a systemic level. It’s more on an individual level where I sympathise with the negative experiences they had and the feelings of social isolation that they go through.
At the risk of making a bad analogy, we could say that if someone stubs and injures their toe on a living room table, we should be able to sympathise with what they’re going through without assigning blame to an inanimate object. The concern is not to find someone or something to assign blame to, but to help out the injured person and give them some support.
That doesn’t mean that we would go on a country-wide campaign about the dangers of tables.
We get tired of being mocked and ignored while trying to discuss the nature of our oppression, its origins, and how to resolve it.
Class society. Capitalism. Sexual relationships will be liberated by changing the relations of production. This is the focus. We are communists.
What you’re doing is the equivalent of “Death to America”. While completely understandable that people rage against the USA, it’s not an ideology that is ever going to fundamentally resolve anything. If not this USA, there would be another. No amount of telling Americans that the onus is on them to listen to the Global South is going to change anything meaningful.
I’m still shocked at how poor quality this thread is for Marxist analysis. I had to check twice that I was on this website and not some shitty federated one.
This is class reductionism. None of these issues can be solved under capitalism, but ignoring the unique systemic issues faced by roughly half of the population is going to make organizing and agitating very difficult. Systemic misogyny, transphobia, racism, settler-colonial relations, etc. need to be dealt with as part of the revolution, and before seizing state power, recognizing these issues and providing solutions (for both the present and future) is essential for building support among these populations.
ignoring the unique systemic issues faced by roughly half of the population is going to make organizing and agitating very difficult.
Directly blaming even, not just ignoring. This is gender reductionism.
Systemic misogyny, transphobia, racism, settler-colonial relations, etc. need to be dealt with as part of the revolution, and before seizing state power, recognizing these issues and providing solutions (for both the present and future) is essential for building support among these populations.
Agreed. That system being capitalism, not the resultant social constructs of it. Trying to push the gender rope and ignoring the root causes is doomed to failure, alientation and wasted effort.
I can’t believe I was sucked into this but there’s some humdingers in this thread. It’s impossible for men to be hated because they are men just because and Men aren’t subjected to abuse, exclusion, violence, etc. on a social or institutional level by any serious percentage just for the ‘crime’ of being men expressly because being a man isn’t a crime. are particularly jaw dropping western chauvinist observations.
No one here is arguing that gender is the primary contradiction. No one here is saying that we shouldn’t address capitalism. What people are saying is that there are contradictions other than capitalism. After all, patriarchy existed way before the system of capitalism. Abolition of the latter does not automatically abolish the former.
And also, do you disagree than men have a privileged position in society? Just so we get our basics covered.
No one here is arguing that gender is the primary contradiction.
Agreed, that would have been something at least. Instead we have “Men bad”.
No one here is saying that we shouldn’t address capitalism.
Nor that we should. We should just address men and get them to “listen”, then everything will be okay.
patriarchy existed way before the system of capitalism. Abolition of the latter does not automatically abolish the former.
As communists, we strive to abolish Class Society, of which Capitalism is only the latest manifestation.
And also, do you disagree than men have a privileged position in society? Just so we get our basics covered.
Which society? I assume this is more western chauvinistic American defaultism again? We’re talking about the entire global gender here. Do you deny that some women have a more privileged position than some men? Or are we only dealing with this absolute. In which case, no is the obvious answer.
This here is misandry in several paragraphs. Unsubstantiated, unsupported, baseless claims with no argument.
I would argue against it but there’s nothing to argue against. There is no reasoned argument put forth, just tautology and obvious bigotry.
Replace it all with female analogues and see if it still works.
I see you have no response to the below comment that destroyed this.
Otherwise, isn’t this a Marxist-Leninist space? What is this liberal bigoted claptrap doing here?
Replace it all with female analogues and see if it still works.
this is not how oppression works though. you cant just replace the oppressed class in place of the oppressor.
All men do not oppress all women. This is as reductive and facile, not to mention bigoted and anti-Marxist. Many men actively work against gender inequality and advocate for women’s rights. many men seek to overthrow the class societies that cause oppression of various groups, just as many women support the status quo.
the same is true for any groupings of classes. there are bourgeois and proletarians who work against their class interests, settlers who are against their state and indigenous people who are for it etc etc. this does not negate the class dynamic.
Thank you. Glad we agree. Maybe you can help me elsewhere in the thread now?
Men are sent to war to get shot at, mutilated and blown to pieces en masse.
Most of the murder victims are male.
Male suicides are off the rails and no one gives a shit.
No one cares about male victims of pedophilia.
One in 3 domestic abuse victims are male.
People laugh at male victims of rape which is barely reported.
20 million of Soviet men which includes 80% of males born in 1920s died in WW2 for some idiot today to be able to wish death on entire gender.
Some of my male ancestors died in concentration camp while defending their country.
Wishing genocide on entire gender is probably not sexism according to you.
Fuck right off.
Edit: I remember you, you were the one who wanted to talk shit about Traoré and find his flaws, beside the fact that he’s literally the best leader on the continent right now. Westerners really need to stay the fuck away from Africa, Muslim countries in general and serious topics such as feminism.
These are just men’s rights talking points. Why exactly are you laundering them here?
I’m not sure where you saw that someone was “wishing genocide on an entire gender”, but no - it’s not sexism. You’re missing the “systemic” part in all your arguments. You can talk all you want about how shitty the world is where men were the driving force of creating it, but ultimately that doesn’t mean that anyone other gender has more systemic power than men. Them creating a shitty world does not equal sexism
These are just men’s rights talking points. Why exactly are you laundering them here?
this is a reactionary who was banned for transphobia, came back, then immediately doubled down. MRA shit is expected tbh
😭 & here I am taking them seriously
Why are we not doing perma bans for repeat offenders?
I wasn’t banned for transpohobia, because I never once said anything against trans people and never even mentioned gender.
An Imgur link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same location on alternative frontends that protect your privacy.
I never said anything against trans people so that was bs.
Ohhhh I remember you on that transphobia post. This is the first post you decided to comment on after that? To defend men?..
What ‘‘transphobia’’?
Saying that denying and encouraging sexism is bad is apparently such an abhorrent thing equivalent of defending Hitler according to you.
You compared intersex people to a genetic deformity
These are not ‘‘talking points’’ these are facts which you choose to completely ignore. Female pedophile or rapist assaulting a male child or adult isn’t the fault of males or female serial killer killing is not the fault of males.
I constantly hear shit like wishing death on entire male gender go unquestioned and denial of sexism towards males and here we see another denial of sexism towards males.
Western ‘‘feminists’’ aren’t feminists and have no right to call themselves like that. Feminism aims to establish equality of sexes, not to exterminate an entire gender.
This is so unserious I can’t engage any further.
You can’t engage further because you have no response.
Don’t.
I constantly hear shit like wishing death on entire male gender go unquestioned and denial of sexism towards males and here we see another denial of sexism towards males.
I can see where you’re coming from comrade but I think you’re missing a lot of the points here and likely what a lot of us take for granted, which is progressive views on gender/sex and a more nuanced understanding of what you’re speaking of.
I can absolutely see how people saying ‘death to all men’ can make you feel like that. When understood as a red army soldier saying ‘death to all nazis’ or a black person in america saying ‘death to all white men’ we understand that its not to be taken literally, I doubt 99% of people who say that fully wish to genocide the entire group of people - it is more of a expression of frustration and a role reversal of the violence being inflicted on them; they really mean ‘death to this iteration of oppressor, burn it to the ground and let new forms take its place’ - they want the group direction to stop and take a different course.
Female pedophile or rapist assaulting a male child or adult isn’t the fault of males or female serial killer killing is not the fault of males.
I remember reading Angela Davis’s legal analysis of cases of rape and abuse by slaves vs other slaves and slave owners. The legal arguements tended to be from the slave owners that the women they raped wherent human and didnt have the same legal rights as other human beings as they where slaves and as have the same rights as a chair they owned.
Given that Angela noticed that often the most horrific acts of violence didnt come at the hands of the slave owners, it actually came from the women slaves - to fit in to a system of violence and oppression created by slavers they had to act like a slaver, and why not go above and beyond? It was a system designed to be horrificly violent and reward savegary, so people acted accordingly and even tried to ‘one up’ the slaver - its a survival strategy.
All im saying is that when women emulate abusive men its a similar dynamic, they are mirroring the dominant hegemony, and it is the upper classes brain - which is setup to protect men like trump who SA with impunity.
we understand that its not to be taken literally
This “I was just joking” then would apply to all misogynist comments too? Or do those words suddenly have real meaning and effects?
often the most horrific acts of violence didnt come at the hands of the slave owners, it actually came from the women slaves - to fit in to a system of violence and oppression created by slavers they had to act like a slaver
Which grants very convenient absolution to all women here. It wasn’t them, it was their conditions, they didn’t have free will, they were automatons. Everyone has their story. You can play the same game with men and say it was because of their culture, peer pressure, imperialism, they were “of that time”.
It’s the same tired apologia.
This “I was just joking” then would apply to all misogynist comments too? Or do those words suddenly have real meaning and effects?
there is a difference between punching up and punching down
This reasoning then admits all bad behaviour of women and only condemns it of men. Because all women are “down” and all men are “up”. Is this your contention?
This “I was just joking” then would apply to all misogynist comments too? Or do those words suddenly have real meaning and effects?
Its not ‘I was just joking’ its ‘this is whats being done to me and im flipping the table over’, you really think I want to kill every single landlord personally or do away with the system of landlordism?
Which grants very convenient absolution to all women here. It wasn’t them, it was their conditions, they didn’t have free will, they were automatons. Everyone has their story. You can play the same game with men and say it was because of their culture, peer pressure, imperialism, they were “of that time”.
It wasn’t them, it was their conditions
and yes thats quite literally what materialism is, are you lost?
One instance is a court case, when it repeats again and again its systematic.
Its not absolving the guilty, its directing the blame at the correct source; the upper class.
The states ideological apparatus produces these outcomes, you think misogyny and ID politics just appeared out of the natural spirit of the working class, or was it taught to them?
Its not ‘I was just joking’ its ‘this is whats being done to me and im flipping the table over’, you really think I want to kill every single landlord personally or do away with the system of landlordism?
I wouldn’t have a major issue with that in the right context, minus the personal killing all landlords part. It would be a tremendous task.
and yes thats quite literally what materialism is, are you lost?
That is not what materialism is. I think what you’re probably trying to say is that the material conditions explains behaviour. My point is that it doesn’t absolve. Yet you were using it to grand absolution to all women, but not men. It’s hard to know what you were trying to say beyond tetchy sniping though.
One instance is a court case, when it repeats again and again its systematic.
Okay? Also unclear.
The states ideological apparatus produces these outcomes, you think misogyny and ID politics just appeared out of the natural spirit of the working class, or was it taught to them?
Thank you for restating my point. I seem to have breathed some ML thinking into the thread finally. Please carry on with this in mind.
Saying ‘‘death to nazis’’ is one thing, but literally wishing death to entire gender which makes up 50% of worlds population is the most insane statement I’ve heard. When they say white, they typically mean white Americans and Western Europeans which are the main oppressors and colonists of entire Global South, Malcolm X said it best, so that’s also understandable. Gender has nothing to do with it, humans can be good or bad, for every Hitler, there is one Stalin.
But generally, most men and women are good, the way some people like this like to present it is that we’re living like caveman or apes or in Middle Ages and everybody’s out there pillaging, beating, raping or killing one another. Most of the men and women I know personally are some of the best people you’d meet, just because my father, aunt and 2 grandparents(with which I’m not in contact for years now) are insane doesn’t mean that every man is conservative nagging asshole or that every woman is screaming abusive lunatic.
There are: Hitler, Himmler, Mussolini, American presidents, Caligula, Louis, Leopold, Nicholas II, Pol Pot, Ted Bundy etc, but there are also: British Queens, Thatcher, Elizabeth Báthory, Marie Antoinette, Madeline Albright, Hillary Clinton, Aileen Wuornos etc.
The point is gender doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that someone can be evil piece of shit.
Saying ‘‘death to nazis’’ is one thing, but literally wishing death to entire gender which makes up 50% of worlds population is the most insane statement I’ve heard.
It might seem insane to you but I kinda get it when its coming out of the mouth of someone whos suffered violence or known someone who has as a result of the patriarchy - like only 3% of sexual assault cases in the UK actually end with the man being charged, its clearly structurally setup to protect serial sexual abuser men, your point of women doing it as well isnt without relevance, but from a social science standpoint women only make up like at most 5-12% of these cases, its fair to see it as a socialization and ideology issue amongst liberal men.
Because all the males are obviously serial rapists or killers including gay and asexual men and entire gender should be exterminated because of it.
The reason for that are good lawyers and corrupted system, female criminals get out from same shit if they have money to pay for a lawyer, or hell, for being fucking ‘‘too good looking for prison’’ meanwhile poor people and especially African-Americans end up in prison and used for legal slave labor in 21th century for lighting up weed or simply existing in wrong place at wrong time. Most of male rape cases aren’t even reported, less than 1 in 10 are, let alone those who have the rapist tried and convicted, this stands for pedophilia where male kids are ignored and pedos aren’t even tried, this has to do with class, not gender.
By that logic I should hate all women for the sexual assault and all the advances I got, my mother should hate all men for horrible ex-husband instead of finding the most generous and friendly man I’ve ever met, my sister should hate all men for all the disgusting guys she met at former school and my uncle should hate all women because of his abusive wife am I right?
Yes, patriarchy hurts men too, despite their immense material privilege compared to other genders. Giving detailed descriptions of this hurt is valuable and I think certainly welcome. Searching for ways to address it is valid. But no, pushing the term “misandry” is not an effective way to organize against patriarchy.
Materially, patriarchy grows out of the divide between paid productive labor und unpaid reproductive labor(reproducing the ability to work). Can you see how those are not equal? How there is an inherent divide in power? Ultimately, this division alienates all of us and only serves to divide the working class. So of course the capitalist class is the only class that has an interest in holding up patriarchy.
But men are offered a bribe: endure the exploitation at work, bury your emotions, renounce your claim to be beautiful and unconditionally valuable in order to be only useful forevermore. Until your not anymore. Useful for generating profit. And in turn you’re king at home. You earn and you own. You command other genders and “lower” men and enjoy countless little benefits in turn for committing daily violence against everyone but the ruling class, including violence against yourself. It’s not that men exist independently and then are offered such a deal, but rather by being offered this deal, they are created and defined as men. Other genders are not defined materially by being offered a deal to become essentially class traitors.
And yes, even though men commit most of the violence necessary to uphold and enforce this structure, women and others can use it too to advance in the hierarchy. But men must face and acknowledge and reject their privilege first in order to allow vulnerability and begin to heal. This is an essential part of class consciousness. Organizing our struggle around “Misandry” as a term obfuscates the brutal reality of patriarchy. It falsely implies a structural bias against men that’s independent of and contrary to misogyny and the larger patriarchal structure.
Use “patriarchal violence” as a term instead. Feminism will liberate all genders (and non-genders) in the end. Fighting patriarchy united is what class solidarity looks like.
Obligatory link to “The Will to Change” by Bell Hooks
But men must face and acknowledge and reject their privilege first in order to allow vulnerability and begin to heal.
Men can reject it all they want, but they still have the privilege, just as I do because of my skin tone.
Yes, they’ll have it until we defeat patriarchy and establish communism. But rejecting it now helps on the way.
Especially healing, because it’s in stages. We have to heal ourselves to heal families -> community -> states -> world -> environment
Even as someone who possesses just about every privileged trait that a person can have in society (besides wealth), its still so much more freeing to recognize material reality for what it is and allow yourself to just be human and vulnerable.
You’re missing the point of homophobia & transphobia -
Homophobia is not the hatred of gay men, it is the hatred of the deviation from traditional masculinity, which is seen as feminine.
Transphobia directed toward trans men is a denial of their ability to be men, because patriarchy is a club & outsiders are not invited. The violence inflicted on them is very particular to “women trying to be men”.
As for your comedic “joke”, it’s just transphobia. The point is that trans women were always women, they’re just aligning their bodies that way. It’s not about removing the “worst part of her”, that would be a framing that she is a man.
10 hours of walking in NYC as a woman in 2 minutes.
I live rurally and it’s not much different. And I’m past middle aged. And we’re expected to see it as complimentary, and too often, women (especially younger ones) do!
But what about the men
American defaultism. Try doing the same thing in China.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Imagine a comedian making a joke about their trans wife; that she removed the worst part of her–being a man.
This is not necessarily misandrist because the “worst” is in the context of what he wants and expects. I cannot imagine this comedian extrapolating and saying that every man should become a woman.
Misandry is nowhere near as common and pervasive as you are making it out to be. A lot of what you are construing as misandry is just toxic masculinity and I think that’s a better way of conceptualising the problem.
deleted by creator
I cannot make sense of your comment at all. Like
misogyny was the mainstream current and not a social faux pass up till recently
What do you mean by this exactly?
What do you mean by this exactly?
While I dont agree with OP’s point. Until like 2010ish calling women “fat whales” or “ugly” was peak comedy and making fun of teenage girls liking justin bieber was 90% of youtube’s cultural output. Look at games, movies and music videos at the time, women were only eye candy or fugly punching bags.
the only difference now is that it’s slightly less socially acceptable, barely
They still are.
misogyny was the mainstream current and not a social faux pass up till recently
It was socially acceptable to be a violent misogynist and you had legal and social backing for the most part up till recently - I mean men still do have that its just that the IDpolitics output of media of the 2010s shifted away from being so blatant.
Im not suggesting men are the ‘real oppressed’, just stating how the upper class are playing men and women off against each other.
Edit:
I realize my initial point was kinda stupid, sorry about that I deleted it - it bought into the false idea that misandry is present in the current system, rather than it simply just being misogyny that is driving the reactions and counter-reactions of this dialect, thanks for being patient.
