Buffed af
Buffed af
You're viewing part of a thread.
I never said that men do not suffer in any way, I said that women's body image issues are systemic ones that affect us for all our lives and from nearly everyone in our lives. It happens to every woman. Men's body image issues are not systemic ones. Body shaming is a thing, but its not a social institution to severely sexually harass and assault men and boys. Almost every woman will experience sexual harassment and assault to some degree. It affects the entire class of women.
So a bunch of men experience the same thing completely independently from each other, and you're here just assuming there aren't systemic processes at play? Like do you just think men have some biological affinity for suits and ties? or Jeans and T-shirts? Or it's just a coincidence or what? Like we live in a world of cause and effect, everything you see in society is a matter of systemic influences.
There are systemic problems for men as well. This conversation has gone largely beyond its scope, that being the way that body image issues for women are unique and particularly abhorrent. Misogyny is a system that also affects the lives of men by devaluing specific activities, clothes, opinions, personality traits etc. that society associates with women and girls. It reinforces misogynistic principles and affects the lives of women too. Men should be allowed to dress how they want to (so should women), work what jobs they want to, present themselves however they want to, and so on. All those things also affect women and the majority of them are based around discrimination towards women. "Pink is girly and therefore boys shouldn't like pink" only functions if you think that being girly is bad or worse or lesser.
But there's lots of systemic issues in society. Misogyny affects the entire class of women directly and the entire class of men indirectly. There are other systems that devalue men such the prison industrial complex, the military industrial complex, rape culture that discourages male victims from coming forward, and the wage slavery of late stage capitalism. Those things also affect women. And intersectional feminism examines the way that those systems interact and build upon one another. Misogyny is one of the most abhorrent things man has ever created, and me and all my friends live with and struggle against misogyny every single day. I think the scale of the problem is hard to understand if you don't talk to a lot of women about their struggles. And when we do speak up more often than not we're barely acknowledged at all, look at the backlash to misogyny in video games or the backlash to the epidemic of rape on college campuses. Those problems have never adequately been addressed in any capacity. When its women's issues a quarter of society listens and cares enough to acknowledge the problems we face, half of society is ambivalent and does not react at all, and the remaining quarter actively believe in misogyny.
Can you define your use of misogyny?
The system of violence, subjugation, discrimination, hatred and prejudice that directly oppresses women.
And your definition of misandry?
A hypothetical system of discrimination against directly and specifically men. I do not agree that this system exists. Our ruling class is patriarchal and men hold significantly disproportionate amounts of power in society. There is no system of discrimination that affects all men as a class. There exists biases and discrimination against men, but nothing that does so using the structure of a system and through institutional power.
What would you call an individual's feeling of hatred of or superiority to women? That's the popular definition of misogyny, not the systemic issues. Usually the system itself is called the patriarchy.
Likewise, an individual's feelings of hatred or superiority to men is popularly called misandry, which absolutely exists. I don't think there's any such thing as a "matriarchy" systemically oppressing men anywhere in the world.
Youre fundamentally misunderstanding what a power structure is. It's not merely a group of individuals who are misogynistic (that is commiting acts of: violence against women, discriminating against women, subjugation women, and perpetuating hatred and prejudice against women) its a pervasive continuous problem across all levels of society and perpetuated by all functions of society. Misogyny exists so universally in our society that every single woman experiences it throughout their lives beginning as very young children. Our own parents teach us misogyny, our education system reinforces misogyny, our media shows us misogyny and so on. There's no woman who doesn't experience it, it affects all women as a class.
No such system exists that discriminates against men as a class.
I know, I get that, I'm asking about terminology. So what would you call a single person who hates women? Not the power structure, just that one person.
A misogynist, assuming you mean someone who is reinforcing or using the power structure of misogyny. To call it hatred is reductive, someone can be misogynistic and not think of themselves as a misogynist. They can have misogynistic opinions, commit misogynistic acts, or spread misogynistic misinformation without seeing themselves as someone who hates women.
There exists biases and discrimination against men, but nothing that does so using the structure of a system and through institutional power.
So you wouldn't actually consider societal pressures against men as misandry? You wouldn't consider the structures that force men to disregard their own emotions to take on provider roles as misandry. You don't see men commiting sucide at 3 times the rate of women significant enough of a qualifier? You don't see how influences like these connect back to men having to be "hard". You don't see how men are used and disregarded by society? Like I am literally missing a piece of my body, and it's just socially accepted.
Like men aren't just in power, men are pushed towards power.
And... I just realized you acknowledge toxic masculinity. So toxic masculinity does effect all men, on societial and institutional levels, which fits your definition of misandry.
[...] biases and discrimination against men [...] using the structure of a system and through institutional power.
Its not that I don't consider it to be misandry its that its not systemic against men as a class. It is not a power structure. There is no woman ruling class enforcing hatred and discrimination against men across all levels of society. Gender roles are a big part of misogyny, specifically the relegation of women to a breeding and mating class that must care for and dedicate themselves to men who leave the home for work every day. Just because it's misogynistic doesn't mean it doesn't have negative effects for men too, it's because it affects women as a class that it is different. Its because its systemic. Which is the difference between misogyny and forms of non systemic violence and discrimination.
I don't understand how you could think that being "pushed into power" could somehow be indicative of a power structure oppressing men as a class across society. That's a key part of it, the ruling class the most powerful people in society are patriarchal men.
Toxic masculinity is a system that benefits the ruling class of men, who are misogynistic and homophobic and weaponize those structures against men perceived to be weak or effeminate or girly. Not all men suffer due to toxic masculinity, many benefit from it. Toxic masculinity enables men to assault women physically and sexually by promoting anger and lack of responsibility for the actions of men. Toxic masculinity promotes the concept of women as subservient to men who are naturally aggressive and 'manly'. Toxic masculinity does not affect men as a class, though it is related to several power structures in society.
Its not that I don't consider it to be misandry its that its not systemic against men as a class. It is not a power structure
But.. toxic toxic masculinity is systemic against men as a class, and it does operate on the level of societial and institutional pressures. That fits the critia for a power structure.
And 99% of men are not "the ruling class", so I just don't see why you would even make that generalization. Especially when the vast majority of issues we talk about are dependent on societial norms, not institutional structures.
Is that the crux of your argument? Until women hold the balance of leadership roles systemic misandry isn't a thing?
Well ideally misandry would never be allowed to exist even in a post patriarchal society. But it doesn't exist now, it is hypothetical.
The ruling class is only men, it is exclusive to men, the ruling class holds disproportionate power in society. The ruling class is the principle group that benefits from power structures, like misogyny racism and homophobia. The ruling class is not disadvantaged as a class in any way, they are the apex of social economic and political power. They have supported institutions like slavery and patriarchy as means of reinforcing their power by stratifing society to benefit themselves. The ruling class has no power structure targeting men as a class.
Toxic masculinity largely functions by excusing the violence caused by men against women and minorities. It does not exist as a system that commits acts of violence and discrimination against men as a class. It has a side effect of discouraging men from being things that are deemed effeminate, like emotional intelligence and empathy. Which is absolutely a real problem that is important to talk about. It promotes men as being free from the consequences of comitting acts of violence against women and minorities. It does have side effects for men, but it exists as a means for men to hurt those other groups and not be held accountable for it. Rape culture is a significant part of toxic masculinity. And the ruling class benefits the most from this.
I'm getting tired of reiterating the same points to the same inquiries though, so please feel free to read what I've already said if you're curious how I think.