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.
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.
Directly blaming even, not just ignoring. This is gender reductionism.
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.
Agreed, that would have been something at least. Instead we have “Men bad”.
Nor that we should. We should just address men and get them to “listen”, then everything will be okay.
As communists, we strive to abolish Class Society, of which Capitalism is only the latest manifestation.
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.
you are again bringing up morality when i am talking about class issue. you seem to be fixated on this idea that men are ontologically evil. i have never brought it up, maybe you are confusing me for someone else
again, nobody said that
yes!
do you really think that only in the US men are a privileged class? because it doesnt seem that you even think that to start with
i do not deny that! but class is not absolute, it is an aggregate concept. some proletarians being more privileged than some bourgeois (a worker in europe vs a shopkeeper in the global south for example) does not mean that on aggregate the bourgeoisie is the privileged oppressor class. another example is racism in the US: just because Obama became president does not mean that black people in aggregate are not being marginalized.
This isn’t going to work. I am the one here who’s introduced class into this moralistic discussion. Me.
Which, again, has been my point in this entire thread. It’s all there for anyone to see. Changing your tune now and trying to swap places with me isn’t going to work. Otherwise you’re just agreeing with me while trying to appear not to.
Do I have to tap the link again? “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…](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)”
Yes, you agree with my correction of your take. Good.
No, I just assumed, completely without evidence that you were American based on the western centered worldview that there is only one society, and men are privileged within it.
Great. The important distinction where this analogy breaks down is that peoples’ relations to the means of production can be changed easily. And this is something we aim to achieve. Whereas men can’t ever stop being men.
Lol you have no idea about me. I’m kind of done with this conversation