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.
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
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.
yes you were
the modlog
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
I didn’t even mention them, i’m not even sure I heard of the term before that but I mentioned ambiguous genitalia.
Haven’t heard the term before but decided to comment on it!
It didn’t have anything to do with that, I was talking about ambiguous genitalia which someone was claiming to be third sex or whatever.
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 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.
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.
This “I was just joking” then would apply to all misogynist comments too? Or do those words suddenly have real meaning and effects?
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.
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?
do you not understand how class works? do you think all bourgeois behave badly and the proletariat behaves goodly? class is not a measure of morality
Attempting to put words in my moth and refusing to engage isn’t a substitute for discussion.
my contention is that men are an oppressor class, which should be condemned as a class based on the oppressor status. bad behaviour doesnt really have anything to do with it
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?
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?
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.
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.
Okay? Also unclear.
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.
I never said that at all and have consistently been pointing at the upper classes schools and domination as the thing that keeps producing these outcomes for both men and women, merely observing the fact that men are put in a special status above women as the dominant hegemonic force doesnt mean that men are also not victims under this system - an inequal class divisions of oppressor and non-oppressor drives toxicity both ways, the forms they take might be different but when it comes down to it, women are the objects of the objects that are men, and men are the objects of the upper class.
The only real way to beat this cycle and resolve the violence being taught and perpetuated is to break the wheel, not keep it spinning by positioning one gender over another. That also requires actually listening to the perspectives of those ‘three times oppressed’ as Claudia Jones calls it.
These conversations tend to test my patience, nothing good tends to come of them other than alienated people shouting about their own trauma and grasping at the dark for answers.
Everyone can scroll up and see that this is not the case.
You say that, but then here we are. In a discussion dominated by people spinning class society as one gender over another, ignoring class, even directly replacing the common Marxist usage of the term with gender. And I’m the only one arguing at this gender reductionism. Even though out of the blue you claim to be doing the same. At least I’ve been able to drag it out of some here. When challenged, everyone all of a sudden rediscovers theory.
Yeah you’re the only true marxist left. Good on you
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.
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?
Why are you putting words in my mouth?
I didnt claim to discuss anything other than men who have been accused of sexual assault and you’re taking it to mean ‘all men’, reflect on why you are constructing my arguments to seem worse than they are.
Because that’s exactly what those people do, generalize entire gender based on that, there are 67k sex offenders in UK and 64k female child sex offenders, does this represent most of male and female population respectively? If your answer is no, then it’s the sane conclusion, but some do think this way.