Buffed af
Buffed af
You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
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.
I'm really disappointed in your inability to confront your own biases. You set definitions, I meet them, and then you just move the goal posts.
How you call Bob at the hardware store "the ruling class" is BEYOND me. 99% of men don't have any sort of ruling authority. So you've created a term that holds men to a level of responsibility they don't have, and then you use that to disqualify the actuality of misandry in society... Fuuuck...
Thank you for taking the time to lay out your biases for me. You've really helped me breakdown this shit, and I appreciate that. Sorry for any anxiety I've given you, but seriously... you need to expand your perspective outside of feminist rhetoric.
I never called Bob at the hardware store ruling class 🙃 but the ruling class is patriarchal and composed of men. The ruling class benefits from men being treated as superior to women. They are the apex of social power structures. There is no social power structure that disadvantages specifically them, there is no social power structure against men as a class.
You still don't understand what misogyny is or how it is different from any social pressure against men. I'm sorry guy, you and everyone man you know did not get sexually harassed by men on the street when you were 12. Every woman experiences misogyny. Every woman suffers misogynistic violence. It affects all of us as a class of people at every level across society. Time for you to ask yourself what is preventing you from listening to the experiences of women who are suffering differently from you. I have expressed concern for men's issues throughout my comments, just because there is no power structure creating those issues systemically and through institutions does not mean that they're not important. Its false equivalence over and over again.
It's not my job to convince you of the way women are suffering and how that suffering is condoned and perpetuated by society. It's your job to educate yourself on the way the marginalized suffer. With that said, I'm done answering questions and engaging with you. I've more than explained intersectionality to you already.
I never called Bob at the hardware store ruling class 🙃 but the ruling class is patriarchal and composed of men.
Okay... So previously in our discussion you dismissed systemic misandry, because "it's not a power structure".
If Bob isn't considered apart of the ruling class, then the oppression of Bob, and other men by the ruling class IS a power structure, and fits your definition of systemic misandry.
And by all means you don't have to engage with me. The only thing I'm really expecting you to teach me is the biases in your rhetoric, so no pressure.
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.
Well that's a problem then, because you're using the same term to refer to two different but related things. Well, it becomes a problem when you consider misandry. Sure, there's no systemic oppression of men (except collateral damage from the patriarchy). But there are absolutely individuals and groups of individuals who hate or are dismissive of men. We need a word for that.
I think the popular definitions here are more useful than yours, because it prevents misunderstandings when someone says something like "misandry is a thing that exists". They're not saying it exists in a systemic, structural way. Just that there are individuals who feel like that.
I never said the word wasn't a real word, I'm saying that in the context of systemic discrimination against men there is no such system of misandry. That it is not true that body policing and control are not equal issues for men and for women. The thing I've been talking about the entire time.
Nouns can be applied in 2 different ways dependent on context, English works just fine that way. When we talk about misogyny in intersectional feminist discourse we are talking about the power structure of hatred and violence against women.
Yeah I just think the terminology could be a lot better. As you can see it promotes misunderstanding.