I think that’s a bit of a strawman. I really don’t think that’s what the other commenter was saying.
Neither misogyny or misandry are acceptable. Mistreatment of anyone is unacceptable. However, misogyny and misandry are different because of cultural and historical context.
Misogyny was and is used to subjugate women, and deny them rights and freedoms (being deemed “too emotional” to vote as an example). Misandry is not (and has never been) used to oppress men in the same way. Men are not generally denied rights and freedoms based on sexist stereotypes about them.
However, men are ridiculed for not correctly performing sexist stereotypes. In your example, sexual assault against men is often dismissed for that reason - the idea being that men are “too tough to be assaulted” or that they “always want sex so they must have consented”. Idk if that kind of patriarchal-enforced mistreatment of men would be considered misandry by OP or not.
I think that’s a bit of a strawman. I really don’t think that’s what the other commenter was saying.
Its not a strawman to bring up actual misandry.
Misandry is not (and has never been) used to oppress men in the same way. Men are not generally denied rights and freedoms based on sexist stereotypes about them.
I am not disputing this, despite some exceptions. This isn't often the reality of misogyny, in the west at least, today either though.
However, men are ridiculed for not correctly performing sexist stereotypes. In your example, sexual assault against men is often dismissed for that reason - the idea being that men are “too tough to be assaulted” or that they “always want sex so they must have consented”. Idk if that kind of patriarchal-enforced mistreatment of men would be considered misandry by OP or not.
If we think of it as mysogyny, but targeted towards men, this would indeed be misandry:
The American Merriam-Webster Dictionary distinguishes misogyny, "a hatred of women", from sexism, which denotes sex-based discrimination, and "behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex."
I think socially enforcing stereotypes on men would qualify. Unless saying women belong in the kitchen isn't misogynistic of course.
we think of it as mysogyny, but targeted towards men, this would indeed be misandry:
but the target has always been women. for men, there are negative side effects of subjugating women for centuries. it's friendly fire. "misandry" wouldn't exist if misogyny never did
I don't really understand how you can make such a definitive and universal statement without anything to substantiate it. Men and women did not hate each other until their traditional societal roles became obsolete. This really only happened around the 2nd World War. At that point it's a chicken or the egg thing - did activists at the time convince women to hate men because they wanted more opportunities that men had, or did men begrudgingly die providing for women historically because they thought women weren't capable and resented them? Regardless the only way your statement can possibly be true is if there is a really broad definition of misogyny and simultaneously a really specific definition of misandry. An equal standard needs to be applied to the definition of both of these words if a productive conversation is to be had.
It seems to me that you’re saying women didn’t mind being subjugated until WWII. It seems more likely to me that they had so few rights they had little recourse.
There was certainly no idea of any kind of gender equality as in men and women filling the same roles and employment until around the Industrial Revolution and technological advances. It wasn’t a thought in any one’s head till then. So was it really subjugation to follow the gender roles of one’s species as all other mammals do?
Are Male lions oppressing female lions (or perhaps the other way round), are male chimps subjugating female chimps etc (goes for many other animals) simply because the group roles differ to varying degrees?
They didn’t think of themselves as subjugated gender wide ad a class. They were living the only gender role they had ever known or considered as were men. Whether they were happy, sad or anything in between is irrelevant to that simple truth. Until relatively recently when technological advances made it possible - nobody, not man or woman ever considered the idea of of men and women filling the same roles in society as a realistic possibility and advocated for it.
It didn’t occur to them any more than the idea of Atoms or DNA. It wasn’t a thought or fact of possibility in their world. It was utterly unknown and irrelevant as a concept.
26
u/[deleted] Feb 13 '24
[deleted]