"Misogyny is in fact equally responsible for all gender based issues. Period..."
"Misogyny is in fact equally responsible for all gender based issues. Period. There is no such thing as misandry..."
Therefore, every negative experience I have due to being male is the result of "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls..."
Therefore, the times when I was walking through neighborhoods (I remember one time I was walking home from work; another time I was scouting what I thought might be a long trail in the area for future leisurely walks) at night and residents there called the police, their response was due to "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls". Okay, I did not live in the area and maybe they did not recognize me. But something tells me that if a woman they did not recognize was walking through the neighborhood at night the police would not have been called.
Have you seen the videos I have seen where actors play a couple having an argument in a public place? It is an experiment. When the man verbally abuses the woman and shoves her, strangers intervene. When they switch roles and the woman verbally abuses the man and shoves him, nobody intervenes. Apparently the outcome of that experiment--the different response to a man being assaulted by a woman--is due to "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls..." We can't attribute it to misandry--misandry does not exist.
In a short, 2-minute video titled Men's Suicidal Life it is stated that a man is severely assaulted by his girlfriend or wife every 14.6 seconds. Apparently our indifference to the victims of such crimes is due to "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls..."
I have absorbed more than my share of thought about gender. Many times I have heard it said that MRA's, including female MRA's, are misogynists. I have seen/heard words and actions that left me almost convinced that feminism--at least at this point in its evolution--has nothing to do with women or equality and is purely an ideology through which people are seeking power by any means, including lying, demonizing their opponents, deluding themselves, etc. And probably almost everything in between. But never before, until a few minutes ago, had I read or heard it said that every gender issue is rooted in misogyny.
I am too familiar with how emotional, personal, and inflamed discussions of gender and feminism almost invariably become. But maybe we can break that pattern here and calmly, rationally analyze the claim made at the beginning of this post.
I think that it is extremely simplistic--extremely black and white--to say that all issues surrounding gender are due to misogyny. I do not know of any comparable claim in any other area of thought. Nobody says that all human rights violations around the globe are due to Western imperialism/colonialism. Nobody says that all poverty is due to capitalism. Nothing--especially in the social world; a world that we do not have precise sciences to investigate like we do with the non-social world (physics, chemistry, geology, etc.)--is obvious. Nothing is black and white. Nothing is cut and dried. It is tempting to say that the claim quoted at the beginning of this post is absurd.
Therefore, every negative experience I have due to being male is the result of "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls..."
Therefore, the times when I was walking through neighborhoods (I remember one time I was walking home from work; another time I was scouting what I thought might be a long trail in the area for future leisurely walks) at night and residents there called the police, their response was due to "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls". Okay, I did not live in the area and maybe they did not recognize me. But something tells me that if a woman they did not recognize was walking through the neighborhood at night the police would not have been called.
Have you seen the videos I have seen where actors play a couple having an argument in a public place? It is an experiment. When the man verbally abuses the woman and shoves her, strangers intervene. When they switch roles and the woman verbally abuses the man and shoves him, nobody intervenes. Apparently the outcome of that experiment--the different response to a man being assaulted by a woman--is due to "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls..." We can't attribute it to misandry--misandry does not exist.
In a short, 2-minute video titled Men's Suicidal Life it is stated that a man is severely assaulted by his girlfriend or wife every 14.6 seconds. Apparently our indifference to the victims of such crimes is due to "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls..."
I have absorbed more than my share of thought about gender. Many times I have heard it said that MRA's, including female MRA's, are misogynists. I have seen/heard words and actions that left me almost convinced that feminism--at least at this point in its evolution--has nothing to do with women or equality and is purely an ideology through which people are seeking power by any means, including lying, demonizing their opponents, deluding themselves, etc. And probably almost everything in between. But never before, until a few minutes ago, had I read or heard it said that every gender issue is rooted in misogyny.
I am too familiar with how emotional, personal, and inflamed discussions of gender and feminism almost invariably become. But maybe we can break that pattern here and calmly, rationally analyze the claim made at the beginning of this post.
I think that it is extremely simplistic--extremely black and white--to say that all issues surrounding gender are due to misogyny. I do not know of any comparable claim in any other area of thought. Nobody says that all human rights violations around the globe are due to Western imperialism/colonialism. Nobody says that all poverty is due to capitalism. Nothing--especially in the social world; a world that we do not have precise sciences to investigate like we do with the non-social world (physics, chemistry, geology, etc.)--is obvious. Nothing is black and white. Nothing is cut and dried. It is tempting to say that the claim quoted at the beginning of this post is absurd.
Comments (72)
The author says she is a Third Wave Feminist and effectively demonstrates the ideological flavor of 3WF. Feminism, some other sweeping 'isms' demonstrates a certain amount of the same sociopathy that very conservative evangelical thought leaders exhibit--pathologic egocentricity, specific loss of insight, general poverty in major affective reactions, and untruthfulness and insincerity
People who go way out into the deep end of ideological extremity (whether it be feminism, marxism, libertarianism, veganism, or what-have-you) seem to take on a pathologically narrow focus, or they have that to start with.
Third wave feminists are not alone in these distortions, but they are out in front of the competition.
By the way, who are these people "other than men" who are raping males? Women? How do they get it up?
One feature of ideological extremists is "simplifying all problems". For the 3WF you quoted, it's misogyny. Misogyny this, misogyny that, misogyny and the other thing. For some gay rights activists, every problem they see is homophobia. Some marxists see the devil of capitalism behind every social problem.
Social/political movements sometimes (usually?) outrun their good ideas. Gay activists would, I think, do well to go back to the late 60s-early 70s gay liberation for inspiration. Marxists would do well to go back to Marx. Feminists would, I think, do well to back up too.
Liberal feminism is crap and it's easy to criticize it, like shooting fish in a barrel.
More coherent feminist thinking, like radical feminism, aim less at "equality" and more at liberation, primarily from the patriarchal institution of gender. But even then, there are many crazies who would like to separate men from women, who are hostile to transgenders and clearly have a cult-like exclusionary prejudice, where there are "women-only" talk spaces that can breed hatred and suspicion for men.
I find it fascinating as an outside observer but I have very little patience with real time gender discussion. It's like you said, far too ideological. It's about waging a righteous crusade against the infidels and pretending you care about truth or objectivity. Red herrings, more like.
This is an assumption from both parties (yourself included) but you fail to consider the balance of probabilities. It is not rocket science to say that more crimes have been committed by men over women.
I don't care for feminism, but I care for human rights and justice and that is for both men and women. It is a reality, however, that the scale of gender-based violence is clearly and unequivocally tipped against women at a much more larger scale. Misogyny is an actuality, particularly in some cultures and demographics.
I am glad that you have pointed out verbal abuse because I believe that it is not yet well understood that violence needn't be physical. Indeed, I have seen mothers treating their children in what I would consider to be a contemptible example of motherhood. Bullying and harassment is a form of violence and can cause a considerable amount of emotional and psychological suffering as much as using physical violence.
As a woman who has witnessed gender-based violence during childhood, it took a long time for me to 'forgive' men and I came to approach the subject with reason rather than emotion since it is certainly not all men who are bad. However, using an extremely small portion of radical feminists as an example of women's rights is not really correct of you, now is it.
I think a discussion about men' rights or masculinity studies is certainly something that should be brought to attention.
Well if I were to speculate, based on my own prejudices, I would say that this result is due to the notion that women are 'the weaker sex'. Now it is arguable whether weakness is something one necessarily dislikes - do you want to argue it? When weakness provokes aid, it becomes an advantage, and I dare say that there are other advantages to being identified as inferior, like not being seen as a threat in strange neighbourhoods. But it doesn't seem like the greatest example of misandry.
Myth Busters demonstrated that it is easy to shoot fish in a barrel: point the gun at the barrel and pull the trigger. What the bullet doesn't hit, the shock wave will damage.
But who puts fish in a barrel to start with, and who shoots them? Third wave feminists? Apparently this is a common practice, because so many people confidently assert that something is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.
Long story made short: Radical feminism is now taught using a suite of sociologically presumptive frameworks (intersectionality, patriarchy theory, new racism, etc, ...) which are based on circular and ultimately self-consuming moral arguments. The actual ideology is stunningly remedial despite constant efforts to make it sound intellectual via grandiloquent vernacular; it opens with a tautology about whiteness, maleness, and privilege/power in society from a sociological perspective (which deeply confuses historical colonialism with contemporary norms), but then instantly dives into long-winded nonsense like: "listening to the emotions, feelings, and lived experiences of people of color, and believing them, because as a white or as a male I'm in capable of comprehending the plight of the victims who I unconsciously oppress, and my existing beliefs are merely self-preserving racist norms I inherited from my white-supremacist ancestors who invented slavery". That women-hating men are all to blame isn't a conclusion of this theory, it's a starting point.
Identity politics has brought modern feminism to it's knees. It's been completely hijacked by the argument that one's identity (be it gender, race, sexual orientation, nationality, etc...) gives actual validity one's arguments, and with the rebuttal that any disagreement is precisely the racist-sexist-homophobic-transphobic oppression that got us here in the first place, it becomes politically dangerous to even question them. They actually had to invent a ranking system (they call it "The progresssive stack") in order to determine which groups are the most oppressed, and therefore whose individual ideas are the most valid, and therefore who should be speaking first and who should be speaking last, or not at all.
It's sad to say, but basically it all boils down to the idea that since white men have all the power in the world, then white males are to blame for everything, including their own problems. The reason why this junk is so prevalent in the media is because every advertiser is so afraid of negative public backlash (except from white males it seems), that they feel obligated to pander to any and every minority or perceivably oppressed group when someone demands it of them. Being called racist or sexist can be a death sentence in today's culture, especially if any band-wagons pick up the trail, and so it will be quite awhile before advertisers stop leaning heavily toward this nonsense. (white tears are less important than black blood, as they say).
It turns out that when the hipster masses get together to shed communal tears at the man, it makes for very fashionable Twitter/Instagram campaigns. #BashTheFash of 'Anti-Fa' is the perfect example of the mentality that this movement promotes. "Let's dress in black, wear masks, arm ourselves with melee weapons and smoke bombs, and go do physical violence to this free-speech rally because everyone knows that Trump voters are all white supremacists and that violence is a legitimate means of expressing our own political ideas".
But not all advertisers are that afraid (or that dimwitted)... L'Oreal fired their first trans model, Munroe Bergdorf, a few days ago for the following social media post:
She then wrote a lengthy response, which pretty much sums it all up:
[hide="Reveal"][/hide]
I doubt that very much.
If it's equally responsible, then there is another factor, which is also equally responsible. IN fact, there could be a number of different factors, which are equally responsible.
One thing can't be alone equal. Or equally responsible.
The quote does not make sense.
I sense that the quote was lifted from a context that is no longer there, and that is a no-no. I claim that the quote as said was part of something that meant something different than what the author is claiming it means.
If genders and gender roles didn't exist, how could gender discrimination or gender related problems exist?
How? By claiming that they do exist, while they don't and then discriminate on the basis of non-existing differences.
Mind you, it is not possible for genders to be equal, and not different, if there are at least two distinct genders, but gender roles are not automatic (in humans they are), such as with foxes, penguins, apple trees, and frogs. Let's for a moment assume that sexual behaviour is discounted as a gender role behaviour (but I oppose this forced exclusion).
I was treated kindly and well by a woman and ever since then I have given my trust completely to all women. Same with men: I got kindness and now I trust them all. Big mistake. It seems that the inference is mistaken whether it's good treatment or abuse we are talking about. Generalising from too few cases is one logical error.
Another logical error that crops up a lot in this corner of the battle of the sexes is affirming the consequent. All rapists are men. So all men are rapists.
It's equality, they're super powerful tiny girls. Totally justified.
That's hilarious...
Something like that. It's all serious, and super justified. Quite a progressive anime. I'm glad that I'm not the only one that thinks it's fucking hilarious.
I do prefer the old fashioned chauvinists. Renji takes his woman beating way more seriously, and can't seem to find the justification.
Of course it's absurd. I'm on the liberal side, but we sure have our share of clowns on this side, too. To me this is just more of the darkness of human nature. "Bring in the next scapegoat."
But it's not all bad for the male (or the white male if we want to generalize). We're allowed to hear these biases. In many ways that's an advantage. On a personal level, I don't want this kind of thing censored. Morbid minds (small minds, group minds) reveal themselves this way. I'd rather know than not know. It helps me pick my friends. Fortunately there are many, many women out there who don't buy into all this conspiracy theory man-hate disguised as the endless war on misogyny. To be sure, women have been victims of sexism, but there's a tendency to overcorrect and merely invert sexism (or racism) into its "virtuous" or sickly-version liberal form. It's far more palatable than alt-right conspiracy theory, at least presently.
It was all that would fit in the thread title field.
It had nothing to do with "emphasis".
Quoting John Days
There was a lot more after "Period". There's a categorical statement about the non-existence of misandry.
I've heard plenty of statements about particular things, such as indifference to male rape victims, not being due to misandry. But never before had I seen or heard it stated categorically that misandry does not exist.
Interestingly enough I don't read a conspiracy in it if you refer to the type of article that the OP referred to. It seems pretty obvious white men in Western countries have had it very comfortable for quite some time historically speaking. And although many men are aware of that historical inequality and try to remedy existing inequality, a lot of how we treat each other is so automatic and ingrained; implicit association tests reveal this time and again. Even when we rationally pursue equality we are confronted with media that perpetuates gender stereotypes (and racist stereotypes).
So women can't be strong, should look pretty, should let men talk but may be interrupted themselves, should take care of kids more than men, and still get paid less etc. etc. I don't think we should be defining it as mysogyny but it's definitely socially harmful as it condones a lot of unfairness as "natural".
And you can test this in your surroundings. Invariably, if you talk about successful women at some point their looks will be discussed. Last month I wanted to talk about Dafne Schippers (a successful Dutch athlete) and one of the first things one of my female colleagues said: "Yeah, she looks pretty good". Really? That comes before being the world champion for the 200 m sprint this year? I consider that pretty telling as it's not just an anekdote but happens constantly in various ways. The message to our kids is: it doesn't matter what you do if you're a girl as long as you look pretty. As a father of one, I find that highly worrying.
Ok, I guess you were using in a different way. I understand it to mean emphasis.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
Nope. The complex psychological processing that configures and influences cognition is enabled with perceptual plasticity and provides us with the capacity to transcend the limitations of cultural transmissions. We can help it.
People are or for a moment become aware that there is something deeply wrong with their environment, but they continue following anyway until eventually they go into some auto-pilot mindlessness and completely forget that they have a mind. That is a choice. That can be helped. And that is also why you can think again when considering that princess sweater.
I think we agree. When I say we cannot blame them; I refer to the subconscious judgments and classifications we render as a result of such cultural imprint. Once we're made aware of the subconscious we do have a duty to rationally correct ourselves. If we then don't there is culpability indeed.
EDIT: I have the impression that quite a few people also blame (white) men for having those subconscious judgments and classifications in the first place, which is why I raised the point.
If, indeed, culture imprints these classifications and if we become aware of the subconscious and rationally correct ourselves, does it also become our duty to enable others access to this awareness? Such cultural phenomenon is a product of our learned behaviour and social interaction and communication develops these classifications that in turn transmit these perceptions. It would seem that tolerance to such behaviour would make one just as culpable.
I'll have to respectfully disagree for the simple fact that it is so omnipresent that a certain tolerance is requirement to function in society. It's in everything; why do we dress the way we dress? Why do we have make up, botox, facelifts, breast implants? Plus, why not adhere to all these gender stereotypes when it works for a significant part of society (beautiful women, rich white men, powerful athletes, popular movie stars, etc. etc.)? You cannot expect people to wage that uphill battle all the time.
I understand. I don't disagree with anything you say. But there are some who do indeed simply "invert" the situation. I recently saw a cartoon on Facebook (a woman's post) of women splashing beneath a waterfall of male tears. How can such sadism be justified if men are not (in the context of this half-joke) the cause of all the suffering of the world? It was Eve. Now it's Adam's turn. Surely all things would run smoothly and innocently if there were only females, right? Of course that's a silly idea that few would seriously endorse, and yet the man-hating jokes seem to suggest the fantasy of an impossible guiltlessness. This fantasy is itself perhaps a colonizing phallus.
As to the beauty issue, I think it's worth noting that men are also harshly judged. Perhaps women (if I may risk a generalization) are less visual in their evaluation of the worth of men than men are not only in their evaluation of the worth of women but also (admittedly with important exceptions) of the worth of other men. People can have different feelings about that fact, if it is indeed a fact. Of course rudeness sucks. The focus on the runner's beauty is a bit laughable. On the other hand, that's sexuality for you. Is there any dispute that many women will choose for a mate a somewhat inferior mind in a sufficiently superior body? I think of Schopenhauer's notion that the brain and the genitals as opposite poles, the first for culture and the individual and the second for the species. As I see it, it is part of the cruel comedy of life. Ideally, we can get a certain amount of control and be less rude. But we can't eradicate this injustice entirely, not unless see become pure mind. Even then style and charisma would be accused of unjustly usurping the position of content.
Everybody is stereotyped.
"All men are jerks" seems to be a popular stereotype.
If you want something from the media, there's all the men in advertisements being portrayed as Pavlovian dogs in the presence of attractive women.
Yet, you never hear that part. You just hear how women are being objectified, or something like that.
And now we have a writer saying that men being stereotyped is entirely the result of misogyny and has nothing to do with any beliefs, feelings, attitudes, etc. about/towards men.
Quoting Benkei
But, according to the aforementioned quote, men should be strong, men should sacrifice their bodies, men should be assertive, men can't be trusted with kids, a man should have a job and a woman should not have to support him, etc. are the result of our hate for women. In other words, condoning unfairness against men as natural is a sign of the oppression of women.
Quoting Benkei
And unattractive men are on a level playing field with attractive men?
I can think of plenty of examples where women's accomplishments are celebrated with no reference to their looks. ESPN spends plenty of airtime covering the University of Connecticut women's basketball program, and in that coverage I have never heard any reference to anybody's looks. I could think of plenty of other examples, I'm sure.
And if we are going to talk about physical beauty and sex/gender, let's not forget that men are judged by the attractiveness of their wives/girlfriends. And I think that it is safe to say that a lot of women exploit that. But if you say that a beautiful woman will only marry a "successful professional" and won't marry a plumber you will be told that she is doing what she has to do because she is oppressed for being female.
It's all due to misogyny, remember.
I wonder if you've considered a related issue. As I see it, people are largely attached to gender and racial identity. Many women (including my wife) take a certain pleasure in being non-male. It's part of their identity. I think it's the same with race. So on the one hand we have this fantasy of the individual without gender and color and on the other hand we have identities constructed in terms of positive stereotypes.
Here's an idea I found in some comment somewhere that's worth considering. Let's consider a male-to-female trans person. If there is no female essence, then what does it mean to "really" be a woman? What does it mean to desire the female pronoun? "I'm a she." What is this she? There was also the case of a "not really black" person identifying as black. So there seems to be a real ambivalence on the liberal side. Clearly it's considered bad form among many of my fellow liberals to conspicuously enjoy being male and/or white. It's treated as if one is flashing "wealth" (privilege). But if celebrating one's femininity or blackness, etc., isn't also the flashing of privilege, this suggests (among other things) a subtle devaluation of femaleness, blackness, and otherness in general, among the very people who would be most ashamed of such a thing. To protect otherness from legal inequality is only decent. But to protect otherness from cultural criticism seems condescending. Incidentally, this is why I won't want anti-male talk censored. First, it allows me to sort potential friends. Secondly, it's a confused form of flattery. Insult them (men). Wish pain on them. They are strong enough to take it. In short, it betrays...penis envy?
Good post. I found this quote to be food for though, though I think you mention it ironically. What hasn't been talked about much is self-oppression. Sartre comes to mind. If I'm oppressed, then my failure is not my fault. As you say, everyone is stereotyped. There is systemic oppression of women, of men, and even of the individual as such. Strong individuals of either gender manage to swim against the current. Weak individuals of either gender will stress systemic injustice in order to justify passivity. "The game is rigged." Of course the game is (partially) rigged and life isn't fair. I believe in voting to make the game less rigged and the individual freer. I'd be ashamed to deny the genius or character of someone because of some kind non-essential otherness. Most thoughtful people probably would be. Beyond the question of empathy, it would also indicate stupidity on my part. Sexism (classic or virtuous) is group-think. The individual melts into the group and its stereotypical personality (emphasis on the positive stereotypes.) The essence of my "gripe" (to the degree that I take such time-killing griping seriously) is the constant reduction of individual dignity and the distinct critical mind to guilt-innocence vice-virtue of groups. "You can only speak if you are purple or round. If you are green and rectangular, don't bother. We have found that green and rectangular types are colorist and shapist to the core. They are therefore excluded."
We could promote the expectation that they should, and practice it ourselves.
I suppose the difference is between asserting one's identity freely and having it imposed by society through subtle and not so subtle expectations and (moral) norms. Only when we're capable of letting go of harmful expectations can a person be free to have their own identity.
It does make me wonder if and to what extent many people would then feel lost? Do we need some level of gender stereotyping to socially function?
I don't agree with how she worded it but if I interpret it charitably I suppose her point is that it all boils down to gender stereotpying (instead of mysogyny) and that's a result of juxtaposing men and women. So when I say "women should be [x]" its corollary "men should be [y]" is probably implicit and vice versa. (Don't cry cuz you're a guy --> I'm a girl so I can cry).
If she didn't mean that, I'll have to disagree with her conclusion. On the other hand, it could be an exercise in purposefully interpreting these situations from an overt women centric point of view as an active rebellion against a society that is still mostly male centric.There's also some sense to it if we accept most social power still resides with men and as such all gender expectations are by and large imposed by men as a result of how they view women; the expectations on men resulting from this would then be entirely our own doing. It's not insensible to me but if that's her point it wasn't clear.
When you think of a good woman who is highly intelligent, perhaps prone to philosophy and science and hangs out on philosophy forums, what type of woman do you see?
Either she is ugly or old, at which point no one really cares. Or she is attractive. But when the latter, such attributes no longer exist in her because an attractive woman cannot also be a good woman who is highly intelligent. Suddenly, the woman gets bullied and harassed by men who try to dominate her, make her feel inferior by saying comments that damage her confidence to silence her to submission, either that or she puts up a fight to save herself, her identity and who she is. Women are not allowed to be who they are without being forced into a category because as Benkei pointed out, perceptions are epistemic for the most part. This is the same with men, that strength is depicted physically rather than mentally, that turning the other cheek is a sign of weakness and it is why I said that masculinity studies is just as necessary as feminist studies.
I highly doubt you "see" the actual person that she is and would be motivated by a number of other reasons to make it worth your while to get to know her as a friend.
Quoting Benkei
There is a fine line between tolerance and becoming disillusioned; morally speaking, if there is a crime, inaction can make one just as guilty despite being able to say "I didn't do it". A woman can wear some make up when they go to an evening out, wear a swimsuit in public, but tolerance to botox, lip jobs and breast implants? No, such tolerance breeds dysfunction in society and eventually, as I said earlier, you end up a mindless drone and disillusioned yourself. Indeed, there is a level necessary, but if you are aware of this reality where people become entrenched with the belief that somehow how they look matters and forget everything else - a world where the amount of money spent per year in the USA on lipstick alone could feed and provide reproductive health to women in the global south - your place in tolerating this would, as you say, prove there is culpability indeed.
A very deep issue. Here's part of the trickiness. Identity is largely about preference, and this largely involves a preference with respect to friends. If I'm a "macho" guy, then maybe I don't choose insufficiently "macho" friends. Maybe I crave traditionally female characteristics in a mate, perhaps to "live out" my own traditionally feminine characteristics that I consciously repress. The differentiation and specialization of organs comes to mind. A perfectly symmetrical relationship may involve both partners in certain blind-spots. Both also enjoy their own "gender" play via its recognition by the other: the roles depend on one another. Anyway, individual freedom involves the freedom of preference. It's reasonable to strive for equality before the law, but it's unreasonable to demand that everyone LIKE everyone else equally. These preferences are "harmful expectations." In a pluralistic society, we are battered by a thousand competing visions of the virtuous person. To me this is just the cost of freedom. The individual can sometimes tame this chaos, but think such an individual tends to do so most radically in terms of an individualism that abandons its identifications with groups. For instance, a female writer might resent her gender being mentioned in reviews. She might not want to have this role of representing her gender emphasized. Such a role is ultimately duty (be a role-model and don't just write whatever the hell you want to write.)
I know lots of sensitive people who wrestle with feelings of guilt or alienation. They want to be good people, but they receive endless conflicting messages about their guilt and their duties. I sometimes feel like the only sane person in a mad house. On the other hand, this is at the cost of me being "cynical" or "selfish" or "irresponsible" relative to the spirit of the times. My "sanity" is dark in a world that craves some universal source of light. I see ambivalence that refuses to recognize itself as such. To some degree we want to be objectified and dominated and cherished as objects. We want to be children again, guiltless and safe in a world where no one is allowed even to think that we are inferior to them. Wolves daydream about the lives of sheep, etc. There's violence and the desire to dominate hidden in the desire to end all domination.
Your point about female MRA's is interesting. Presumably the female MRA is a gender-traitor. But the apparent fact that only women can be gender traitors suggests to me that men, more than ever, symbolize the universal. Man does not exist. To be a man is (to some degree) to have no fixed nature excepting perhaps the guilty autonomy that feminism needs from men. To be clear, I absolutely support individual freedom and equality before the law. I like proud, strong, capable women. So in some sense I'm a "feminist," though that word has been stretched too thin. I have to stress this because our polarized culture is drenched in a "with us or against us" attitude.
The main point I want to make is about the sexism in feminism. As soon as a sophisticated feminism makes room for those women who enjoy being objectified or taking a traditionally feminine role, it's already just individualism. Do your thing, sister. What solidarity is left except for the sharing of genitals? (So reproductive rights seem like a logical, non-paranoid goal for a non-sexist feminism. Individuals with the uteruses that value their have a well-defined goal here, namely access to body-specific healthcare.)
But the sexism in feminism is a vision of the abstract protagonist Woman and her ancient foe Man. She must be rescued from the dragon. Although she is secretly magical and superior, she is everywhere in chains. Of course every particular woman has a duty to advance our spectral protagonist, just as every man has a duty to repent and be baptized for his existence as a cell in the Great Satan, Man. This is all terribly oppressive and stereotyping. If a woman fails to achieve her goals, no doubt Man has a hand in it. If a man succeeds, he cheated. So failure and success are distanced from individual effort. Of course there has been systemic sexism and perhaps still is. But leaning in to it at this point may be counterproductive. Supposedly the goal is a gender-blind society, which would involve women also being viewed as universal, autonomous, guilty-worthy adults. But this would be the death of feminism, or at least of its justification. Does feminism really strive for its own obsolescence? Consciously, perhaps. But in some feminists (the "morbid" conspiracy-theory types who find a male hand in everything wrong with the world), there is perhaps the all-too-human terror in the face of freedom.
But this is already an oversimplification, because there are some obvious ways in which men have it statistically "worse" than women, such as in rates of incarceration, suicide, homelessness, etc.
I really don't see the use of the "privileged/oppressed" dichotomy as an analytical tool for gender issues. It scarcely predicts what one would expect to see in reality if it were true (though of course, feminists adhere to it because of politics rather than empiricism).
They leave out the fact that men are also investing in things like cosmetic surgery because attractive people have higher incomes.
Forget for a minute about cosmetic surgery that costs tons of money. Think about all of the advertisements targeting men with promises of solutions to gray hair, hair loss, low testosterone, etc.
There are even men suffering from eating disorders due to body image issues.
Yet, apparently we are supposed to believe that it is all due to our contempt for and hate for women.
I don't see the correlation.
No evidence has been presented that shows that it can all be traced back to misogyny.
And has anybody else noticed that no matter what ideal physique is presented or pursued it is called misogyny? If black men like women with excess body fat, we are told that that is compromising women's health to satisfy men. If Hollywood presents thin women as ideal we are told that that causes body image issues and eating disorders in women.
It is horrible that girls and women feel like they have to compromise their health to please and appeal to men.
But is it any different for men? We have men literally destroying their brains playing the game of American football. I think that it is safe to say that a lot of football is boys and men meeting the requirements to be considered masculine and that girls and women encourage it.
Yet--again--we are somehow supposed to believe that all of it is due to systematic, widespread, epidemic, often subconscious contempt for and hate for women. And--again--evidence showing that all of it leads back to such misogyny is not presented.
If the physical ideal that women are asked to meet varies that seems to me to suggest that our obsession with pleasure and our culture that requires people to compete with each other probably has as much, if not more, to do with it as any misogyny.
If we are being honest we will recognize and acknowledge that the most talented, most dedicated, hardest working, etc.--the most qualified--people often don't get the admission to college, jobs, promotions, loans, public offices, etc. Even straight white men lose to less-qualified people. Yet, apparently we are supposed to believe that everything is rigged so that being female and average looking keeps you oppressed, dominated/subjugated, etc.
Again, this whole misogyny paradigm is extremely oversimplistic.
I don't know.
What do you think?
I think that it is clear that she is saying that hate/contempt for men does not exist and that all gender-based problems/issues are the result of misogyny.
I hope that "you" is being used generically there and does not refer to me.
Do you think my point was to divine what she truly meant or to explore different interpretations? You missed my point and that makes it all the more likely you missed hers.
Every feminist source I encounter is oblivious to men suffering as men.
Quoting TimeLine
That discussion has already been going on at least since the 1975 publication of The Hazards of Being Male: Surviving the Myth of Masculine Privilege, by Herb Goldberg, if not since the 1971 publication of The Manipulated Man, by Esther Vilar.
But it has never been the kind of dominant, mainstream narrative that feminism has been. It has struggled for relevance. Considering the attitude in the quote at the start of this thread, are the latter and former any surprise?
The author here says that microaggressions are gendered violence and that an example of such violence is women being interrupted.
And you think that being confronted by the police; members of the public not noticing or caring that you are being assaulted; etc. are not good examples with respect to men?!
You miss my point, I fear. I do not deny that your examples are the result of gender stereotyping, nor do I deny that they operate in these cases to the advantage of women. My claim is that they stem from exactly the same stereotypes that in the vast majority of cases operate to the advantage of men; the same prejudices that women are not worth hearing out in a discussion, operate to suggest that they are not worth arresting, and need our help in a domestic.
Excuse the graphic parody, but it is as though in the good old days, you were to justify women not having the vote on the grounds that men don't get doors held open for them. The conception of women as weak, irrational, and the opposite of all the manly virtues sometimes works to their advantage, but this does not turn misogyny into misandry.
You start out talking about stereotypes. Then you conclude with misogyny and misandry.
Misogyny is about hate, contempt, etc.
I do not see how stereotypes are relevant. Probably everybody is stereotyped in some way. However, most examples that immediately enter my mind have nothing to do with hate or contempt. The people of Appalachia are stereotyped as poor and uneducated, by I don't see any hate or contempt there.
No, I think that there is widespread mistrust of and hostility towards males.
A clinical psychologist said to me many years ago, "I believe that girls are socialized to hate men".
In order to love or hate a group or type, whether it's gender, class, race, or whatever, you first have to stereotype them. Mysogyny is contempt for women as you say, it is stereotyping them as inferior and then treating them as inferior. you seem to have a difficulty in grasping this, so let's try the ideas out on race for comparison.
Suppose we as a society think that black people are inferior to white to the extent that we treat them as property. They cannot vote, or make decisions about their lives or jobs, or appeal to the justice system. You get the picture.
Now I say to you, "they are so lucky these black people, they do not have to worry about losing their jobs, or what the government is going to do, they do not have to fight for their country, and my friends and I do not hate our slaves, we love them. And yet a clinical psychologist told me that black people are socialised to hate whites."
You might think I had missed something.
Is it possible that enslavement came first, and the stereotype followed? It seems like one would be required to think of one's slaves as inferior, especially if one consigned them to only physical labor. What else would cover the cognitive dissonance of enslaving one's fellow man? Did the Romans have a more complicated view of their slaves because they served as tutors and teachers as well as ditch diggers?
Quoting Bitter Crank I don't think it was a race thing at all, but a class thing. But ask a time traveller.
Yet, it is insisted that negatively stereotyping males is not hate for males.
Quoting unenlightened
The stereotype that seems to dominate is that males are morally inferior.
What could be more negative than saying that a class of humans is worse than everybody not in their class simply due to the way they were born?
Yet, we are told that misandry does not exist.
Quoting unenlightened
Predictably, any time that someone is concerned about men's issues other people say from a feminist perspective, "You don't get it".
A lack of empathy, a lack of respect, and an almost complete failure to listen seems to always be the feminist response to men's issues and concerns.
Quoting unenlightened
That is a straw man.
Men are hated for being men, it seems clear to me. A clinical psychologist even told me that--based on his observations in the clinical setting, I assume--he believes that girls are socialized to hate men.
Men are human too, believe it or not. Anything that questions, denies, undermines, etc. men's humanity is misandry.
This childish game of "Who is really a victim?", "Whose oppression is really the problem?", "Who has really suffered?", etc. needs to stop. If feminists want to completely be treated as human then they should act like humans in response to everybody. If we are talking about any people other than feminists--fascists, white supremacists, PETA, Westboro Baptist Church, etc.--who show no empathy and compassion to humans we see them as bordering on less-than-human. However, the humanity of feminists does not seem to ever be questioned--not even by anti-feminists--no matter what they do. I don't know why the latter is the case, but I suspect that if these feminists who categorically deny the existence of misandry were to change their approach to men's issues and instead try listening, empathizing and showing compassion they would find that being male is its own set of negative experiences and nothing done in the name of women's liberation has addressed a lot of that.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
I think those quotes summarize your bias on the matter.
If this were the case, one would expect to find women dominating in matters pertaining to morality, in the judiciary and the priesthood, for examples. But they don't. Quite the reverse, because the dominant stereotype is the exact opposite - that women are morally weaker, and this is part of the justification for male dominance in every other sphere. If the dominant stereotype was that men are morally inferior, we would not put them in charge of everything.
Feminism is not oblivious to the suffering of men but concerns itself with the study of women. That is the point.
For the most part, being a feminist is not about being an aggressive woman walking around topless and having sex with whoever you want, but it is having the attributes of one who fearlessly continues despite their vulnerabilities, those that fight hatred and violence and cruelty with goodness and love, by never giving up. It is about being yourself, whether you feel feminine in nature or not, and being virtuous and principled. This is the same for men. There needn't be a stereotype, an image that would classify you as a 'man' or a 'woman' but it is wholly subjective.
My father was taught to be 'manly' and that masculine attributes were physical in nature as well as being aggressive and showing dominance. He would boast about stories on how he made people disabled and would often beat my mother up - she was a tiny woman mind you - because in his pathetic culture violence against women had become normalised. He was a mindless follower of the constructions of masculinity and did the every bidding of his social environment that he cared for more than his own family and children, his false facade showcasing someone different to what we experienced when he came home.
I care about the construction of masculinity because of the impact it has on me and my mother (who became lost because she could not escape) and siblings, all of whom bullied and harassed me as I was the youngest in the family to vent their frustrations. I have never had sex neither even kissed a man because I was for a very long time scared of men and of being hurt. While I am lucky that I was never raped or severely hurt in some physical way, psychological and in particular emotional trauma was significant because of the constant threat of violence and it took a lot to recover from the realisation that I was long hiding from the pain pretending I was protecting myself since I thought men were the enemy. I know now that by exposing my vulnerability and being myself, I am much stronger than my father.
At the same time, it is not difficult for us to hastily generalise when you see the incredibly significant and widespread gender violence that occurs globally. I believe that masculinity studies is relevant to feminism because it will enable feminists to understand the underlying cause of why gender bias exists and encourage an interdisciplinary approach to the subject.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
The problem with the construction of masculinity is that a man exposing his vulnerabilities is considered 'weak' - for a very long time, men never exposed their experiences of sexual assault where a terrible number of boys had been raped and remained quiet; this includes the alarming rate of suicide. What you appear to be confused about is that you seem to be blaming feminism for this failure, but on the contrary, it is the construction of masculinity that has prevented the struggle of men to be voiced.
If anything, you should perhaps be praising feminism for working hard to fight these social constructions and stereotypes for ultimately shedding light on the issues that men face.
But then feminists say that a men's rights movement is not needed; men's rights activism is misogynistic; "There is no misandry"; etc.
And if somebody says that feminists care only about women, not about equality, he/she is told that nothing could be further from the truth.
To stop at calling feminism incoherent would be generous, it seems.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
Call this misandry, but are you having some spat with your ex?
I've seen much worse ad hominems directed against me.
Barring anecdotal circumstances to the contrary, a social movement for men's rights would indeed be Bullshit considering the amount of benefits already bestowed on men, at least in typical Western societies. It seems to me you're confusing the existence of some misandrists with misandry being a social problem. It really isn't and to suggest otherwise as a man is weak (see what I did there).
A straw man.
The message seems clear to me every day: men are horrible, rotten beings; men are a necessary evil at best; etc.
I did not say anything about "people".
I talked about the message that boys and men get every day in the culture that I am a part of.
Quoting unenlightened
"They" are irrelevant.
And I did not say anything about feminism, so that is a red herring or some other fallacy.
Quoting unenlightened
What argument is being turned into a straw man?
Quoting unenlightened
One of the stupidest ad hominems I have ever seen.
I am sorry that you experienced all of that.
I am glad that you have emerged from it as a stronger person.
I don't recall ever in my life blaming feminism for anything.
Some people blame feminism for the failure of the family institution, the marriage institution, etc. in America. Some people blame feminism for the mistreatment of boys. And a lot of things around and in between. I even saw one writer blaming women's suffrage for the unsustainable expansion of government (women expect government assistance, or something like that). But I don't recall my own self ever blaming feminism for anything.
What I have said here is that I believe that women's liberation has done nothing to address or correct how men suffer as men.
Apparently feminism categorically denies that men suffer as men, I now must conclude (see the quote that inspired this thread).
Well, I disagree. Studies at tertiary institutions on men and masculinities is interdisciplinary in gender studies and sociology. The idea is that if the social construction of masculinity is causally to blame for the existence of misogyny, a focus on how masculinity effects men in turn transforms the very reality that feminists seeks to stop. It should not just be one voice trying to defend itself but men and women working together.
https://cup.columbia.edu/book/masculinity-studies-and-feminist-theory/9780231122795
Men are not billiard balls in a physicist's experiment. Men are not mice in a psychologist's laboratory maze. Men are not Pavlovian dogs responding to stimuli.
This whole "If we remove masculinity A from men's environment then men will no longer respond with misogyny M" business is dehumanizing. Much like the business of requiring men in college to attend training about sexual consent (and not requiring the same thing from women) is dehumanizing.
I don't think that it is very complicated: treat women as humans with dignity and rights (historically, we have not), and treat men as humans with dignity and rights.
That means treating men (and women) as people who are not perfect, make mistakes, are personally responsible for their personal choices, are capable of empathy, compassion, altruism, etc, suffer just like other humans (and, it is becoming increasingly clear, non-human life), etc.
If I was leading a men's rights movement that would be my focus: we are humans who have dignity, and not respecting that is unacceptable. I would ask young men if acquiescing to "Every man is a potential rapist" ideology is worth attending college--if compromising their dignity for the opportunity to earn a degree is a rational trade.
That barely scratches the surface of how men are treated as less than human and less than equal because of their sex.
The only response feminism has is things like, "Well, if a man is raped nobody says that he asked for it with the way that he was dressed", it seems. That is not taking men's issues and problems seriously.
A movement fighting for the dignity and rights of men that treats men as fully human and takes the problems/issues that men face seriously is needed. More "ism" is not needed, no matter if it is feminism, Protestant fundamentalism, or anything in between.
Empathy and compassion for men as men does not seem to exist. Blaming that lack of empathy and compassion on patriarchy or misogyny does nothing? to fill the void. Telling men that their suffering is their own fault is mean spirited.
I don't have the resources to scrutinize every written or spoken word that categorically denies the existence of misandry. But I suspect that when somebody goes to that extreme in response to men's concerns, he/she is not listening and not empathizing.
But now somebody will probably say, "That failure to listen and empathize is how people are socialized under male dominance to respond to men". Feminist reasoning looks more? circular with each response feminists make.
From experience, I have been treated as an object more by women then I have by men, but I have come to realise that those who have treated me that way - either men or women - are those with the least self-esteem and such people, in their vulnerability, can be rather monstrous. They follow others and even steal other people's personality; if A is attracted to B, then they are also attracted to B, because what they seek is the esteem given to them by others. I have encountered people who copy and then ridicule or ostracise the person that they are copying as though trying to separate themselves from the fact that they are slaves to this lack of self-esteem and they are so petrified of being independent and alone that overtime they lose their humanity.
I have been treated that way by some women and men because my independence is clear and my kindness is genuine, and that can be threatening since their identity is formed under the assumption that obedience to societal expectations is absolute, that you cannot actually have real self-esteem but only if others give it to you. Society, being cunning, enables them to trick themselves into assuming that they are somehow 'individuals' when they clearly follow this desired image. Our attitude to ourselves is all a result of our social and environmental training. We "buy" and "sell" ourselves to others and social networking has become a perfect platform that enables and strengthens this lie.
“What becomes of a man who acquires a beautiful woman, with her "beauty" his sole target? He sabotages himself. He has gained no friend, no ally, no mutual trust: She knows quite well why she has been chosen. He has succeeded in buying something: the esteem of other men who find such an acquisition impressive.” Naomi Wolf
There are subtle albeit very effective behavioural demands and real power is strengthened when people believe that they are the one's making that decision. The man thinks he has made the choice of living with this beautiful woman because he wants her, and though he lives with anxiety or takes drugs or whatever that are clear indicators of his misery, he remains content living in that lie because he has acquired the esteem of others. It is like working in a dead end, horrible job year after year as long as you are getting paid. As said by Aldous Huxley:
“One believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them.”
This inequality does exist in men also, I will not deny that and will say that the problem is greater than sex. That is why I said that I am not a feminist because that merely scratches the surface. The problem is in humanity, it is social and environmental, cultural and religious. These conditions transcend sex. The fault, again I will reiterate, in your argument is that you are still thinking that somehow feminism is the issue.
Must be confirmation bias.
I have to catch myself every day and correct the thinking that men are horrible excuses for human beings.
"Wow!", I will think. "That stranger--a male--was empathetic and compassionate towards me, and he didn't even know me".
If I caught myself prejudging another person because he/she was female, African-American, homosexual, etc., I would feel ashamed. That's not the case with prejudices, stereotyping, bigotry, etc. with respect to men.
And, as many of the responses in this thread show, it is futile trying to expose such anti-male attitudes--such double standard in attitudes towards prejudice and bigotry--and get people to take them seriously because you will be met with "Men have all the power", "The system funnels all benefits to men", etc., and people won't listen.
With each new thing I hear in response to men's concerns it sounds more and more like I am dealing with an ideology that depends on vilifying men and viewing men as the enemy of all good in the world.
I think that it is clear that there is misandry--I catch it in my own mind almost every day.
"There is no misandry" itself sounds and feels like more of that misandry I struggle with every day, to be honest.
The biggest struggle is with hating my own self for being male.
Quoting TimeLine
In that respect it seems to me that women in the Post-Industrial West who think of themselves as liberated and independent are no different from privileged men. It may not be about the physical attractiveness of their partner, but their sense of self-worth hinges on external things. Education. Career. Home ownership. Conspicuous consumption of things like Hawaii vacations. Etc.
It feels difficult trying to? get to know such women below a superficial level, unfortunately.
Quoting TimeLine
No, I have never said or thought that feminism is "the issue".
Most feminists are simply behaving the way they have to behave to win at the political game.
But that does not mean that their behavior is in their best interests.
A man can be critical of feminism and have the best interests of women at heart, believe it or not.
"You are either with us 100% or you are against women" does not do anybody any good.
Calling anybody who does not go along with you in lock-step a "misogynist" is irrational and self-defeating. Having no empathy or compassion when men bring up their concerns about how they are treated for being men--not responding to such men as a human interacting with a fellow human--takes irrational and self-defeating to even lower depths.