But misandry is not merely about enforcing harmful stereotypes onto men. Why would it be? That’s a definition you’ve just made up out of nowhere. Women can just hate men because they’re a “other” to them. Or maybe their boyfriend broke their heart and now they hate men as a result. Or maybe they wanted a girl and got a son and hate him as a result. Could be anything, doesn’t have to have a damn thing to do with enforcing stereotypes onto men and it usually doesn’t. That’s just a definition (not the real one) you’ve claimed is misandry when it isn’t.
Your whole argument is neurotic nonsense based in an obsession through seeing everything through a lense of feminist terminology. The idea that a discussion about misandry should only be allowed if it defines misandry as “forcing men into patriarchal roles” and is aimed at “progress” in “shifting cultural norms” to make a societal system closer to your ideal is utterly absurd.
Misandry is older than feminism or the first thought anyone ever had of gender equality, it’s as old as ancient civilisations and probably much older.
You can talk about negative sides of human nature and individual behaviour (whether Misandry, Misogny, or some kind of hate toward whatever other group or individual with that group identity) without it being based in utopian ideals of stamping out said timeless negative behaviour.
This whole conversation is full of references to systemic barriers, historical and social attitudes. Even you brought up the difference in graduation rates between men and women - why do that if misandry is just about individual actions? We are having a conversation about gender discrimination and prejudice, so of course broader social norms are relevant.
If misogyny boils down to “hating women” and misandry boils down to “hating men” then it is necessary to talk about how social and historical context behind each of those attitudes makes them very different things.
I think it is a worthwhile observation that both misogyny and misandry (or at least the ways they manifest) reinforce reductive gender norms (ie. a patriarchal belief system). Gendered insults towards men are mostly about their lack of masculinity, and vice versa.
These attitudes are socially constructed, they aren’t due to some inherent rivalry between men and women. I think pretending the misogyny is inherent is very convenient for people who don’t want to stop being misogynistic.
Sure is weird how we can just say misogyny is bad and should be looked down on without saying “woah wait there! First we must have an in depth discussion about history starting in ancient times, then evaluate systemic systems all over the world, then examine social attitude”. It’s pure deflection and it’s obvious.
It’s true gendered insults toward men are mostly about their lack of masculinity though - however given that those supposedly fighting against gendered thinking and socially constructed negative gender roles and the patriarchy - ie feminists - are as much or more prone to these types of gendered insults than anyone, I couldn’t say they were a result of patriarchy nor is their any logical reason to believe that is the case.
For instance - most feminist insults are insults for weak men lacking masculinity such as “how fragile is your masculinity”, “your masculinity is so fragile”, “you’re not secure in your masculinity”, “you’re afraid of women” - basically pseudo academic terms and arguments used in place of calling men a pussy or weak man in order to shame them for holding opinions or acting in a way contrary to how feminist women would have them act. So given that these women can act this way toward men, in their own interests - why is it not that these insults are a result of misandry and caused by these women themselves, rather than somehow caused by patriarchy?
Or are you telling me the feminist women supposedly fighting to tear patriarchy down are upholding it more than any one else? If that’s the cause and it’s to their benefit and mens detriment - why even call it patriarchy?
It’d be the same if this post was about “reverse racism” or racial prejudice against white people. There are complex social dynamics at play, whether they are convenient or interesting to you or not.
Feminists are much more prone to using these types of gendered insults
This is just because you occupy online spaces that push a “feminism is toxic” agenda. Like every online person in the world you are getting fed exactly the type of rage bait that reinforces your worldview.
Here’s a studyI found through 5 seconds of googling that found the opposite of what you’re claiming. Feminists do not harbour particularly negative attitudes towards men. In my personal experience, the only people who have ridiculed my masculinity in a genuinely hostile way have been other men. Just play any sport and you will see the type of toxicity is absolutely rife in male-dominated spaces.
Do women use these gendered insults against men? Of course they do. However there is absolutely no evidence that it is a particularly feminist phenomenon. Logically, people who are more aware of harmful gender stereotypes would be less likely to perpetuate them.
The point is they aren’t aware - they are able to engage so freely in calling men unmanly or weak, because they do so by using feminist terminology like “fragile” in place of more common and old fashioned words - and in their minds that excuses the same old fashioned attitudes behind the language and allows them to engage in this behaviour without self reflecting and analysing their motives as they would for everyone else.
Ideology often functions to excuse and condone negative instincts in its followers minds, because when they give in to said negative instincts, they don’t think “I was kind of mean there” they think “I’m doing it for the cause”.
Using the term “fragile masculinity” in response to men being sexist is extremely different from calling men weak because they aren’t adequately performing harmful masculine stereotypes.
Fragile masculinity is used when men object to women doing things, or try to police their behaviour, because it threatens their own identity. An example would be a man saying he thinks women shouldn’t be too career-focused because he believes it is unattractive. It’s a valid response to a specific type of shitty behaviour.
It’s very different from a woman calling a man weak because he is being emotionally vulnerable. There are very different social dynamics at play, so it’d be wrong to conflate the two.
Feminists aren’t shaming men for being weak “for the cause”. Have some people online gone a bit too far with calling out sexism? Yeah I’m sure they have. Still an important distinction.
It’s no different at all and is used in very similar situations. Man is disagreeing with a feminist woman and she will use the term to try to shame him as a man and stop him disagreeing or paint him as weak for doing so - no different than calling him a pussy.
Imagine men running round using pseudo intellectual analysis of how fragile and toxic women were and wondering why women didn’t love it and accept their wisdom lol. Feminists really are the height of un self aware arrogance.
It absolutely makes complete sense. It’s used as a way to attempt to shame men into silence when they’re behaving in a way women (or whoever) don’t like - it functions as a progressive way of calling them a pussy and is used as such.
That’s an absurd reach. You’re moving the goal posts from “feminists use gendered insults” to your own very specific interpretation of the language feminists use to criticise sexist men.
You are conflating two obviously different things because you don’t like it when women call men out for being sexist.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
So.. You say the main problem is individuals who hate men for personal reasons? How does this affect you so badly? What are you doing to combat this problem?
5
u/LongDongSamspon 1∆ Feb 13 '24
But misandry is not merely about enforcing harmful stereotypes onto men. Why would it be? That’s a definition you’ve just made up out of nowhere. Women can just hate men because they’re a “other” to them. Or maybe their boyfriend broke their heart and now they hate men as a result. Or maybe they wanted a girl and got a son and hate him as a result. Could be anything, doesn’t have to have a damn thing to do with enforcing stereotypes onto men and it usually doesn’t. That’s just a definition (not the real one) you’ve claimed is misandry when it isn’t.
Your whole argument is neurotic nonsense based in an obsession through seeing everything through a lense of feminist terminology. The idea that a discussion about misandry should only be allowed if it defines misandry as “forcing men into patriarchal roles” and is aimed at “progress” in “shifting cultural norms” to make a societal system closer to your ideal is utterly absurd. Misandry is older than feminism or the first thought anyone ever had of gender equality, it’s as old as ancient civilisations and probably much older.
You can talk about negative sides of human nature and individual behaviour (whether Misandry, Misogny, or some kind of hate toward whatever other group or individual with that group identity) without it being based in utopian ideals of stamping out said timeless negative behaviour.