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.
I don’t think I disagree exactly. But I would emphasize that it is something where patriarchy has to be actively and systemically dismantled. We can’t only emphasize class war and hope that’ll fix it by association. In spite of it being manufactured fracturing, the cultural and social imprint is still very much real.
Yes, of course it needs to be dismantled specifically. I’m basically arguing against “equal exploitation” under capitalism. I think that capitalism actually supports culture war as long as it is pure and devoid of class war. Most culture warriors i have met are not class concious and are easy agents for the bourgeoisie which I’m trying to point at.