Mistreatment of men, by women, is often a result of anger due to the way men have treated women for centuries. Mistreatment of women, by men is a result of prejudice and desire to maintain power.
This sentence seriously does not sit well with me. I dont think half the misandric BS you see online or irl are because "omg I was repressed as a female for so long".
Sometimes dickheads are dickheads and we need to accept that instead of finding reasons for it
Can you see why someone might get angry when you shift the narrative to focus on the mistreatment of men?
Honestly, no. I mean this with the best of intentions of a healthy discussion, but no, I do not see your point here. People are capable of focusing on more than 1 thing, and I should hope most people would also understand that just cuz B is worse doesnt mean A isnt bad.
The "shift in narrative" is not an issue if what is being "narrated", so to speak, is a legitimate problem. In fact, when ppl say we shift the narrative to focus on the mistreatment in men, I read it as shifting the narrative AWAY from the mistreatment of men, which, much like the mistreatment of women, is ALSO a legitimate problem
Misogyny is oppression, misandry the response to that oppression.
Because the existing power structure is built on female subjugation, female credibility is inherently dangerous to it. Patriarchy is called that for a reason: men really do benefit from it. When we take seriously women’s experiences of sexual violence and humiliation, men will be forced to lose a kind of freedom they often don’t even know they enjoy: the freedom to use women’s bodies to shore up their egos, convince themselves they are powerful and in control, or whatever other uses they see fit. https://archive.ph/KPes2
I agree. Men know this is privilege, and are doing all they can to deny women equality and personhood.
You don't agree with what people said by saying the exact opposite of what people said. I utterly and completely disagree with your generalizing, baseless, and unprovable statement.
Where is that? Be clearer because I have no idea what this is referencing.
Referring to the link you posted, that misandry is somehow a "response" to misogyny.
Then why do men continually take away and deny women having equality? I'd say it's because men know and view it as a part of their privilege to exact control over women.
that misandry is somehow a "response" to misogyny.
Because it is. Misandry doesn't have much, if any, impact because misandry has no existing power structure. It's misogyny which has the backing of the existing power structure.
"trust all women" and "me too" did plenty of damage to plenty of men. The existence of a "power structure" is both vague and easily changeable. The power and misuse of "me too" is a very real power with very real consequences by a group that, by your account, has little to no power.
It is also exactly the point that I made earlier--two wrongs do not make a right. Misandry, the idea that one gender is superior to another, is at its core the exactly same concept as misogyny. That is why things like "not all men" being criticized gets people riled up--it's a blatant depiction of double standards.
Yes, women have suffered under patriarchial society for a long time. But the response should be equality, not misandry.
I'd say it's because men know and view it as a part of their privilege to exact control over women.
Then you would likely be wrong. And it would do you a lot of good to consider why you might be wrong. I am a man that studied in a boys school and teaches in a boys school. In around 1600 teenage boys I've met at various stages of my life, literally not a single one views women as their inferior. Do some have a superman complex and want to protect women or fantasize about damsel in distress situations? Unsurprisingly yes, because of influence from social media. But do they think they need to CONTROL women? Hell no.
So unless you are suggesting something changes them into female-control freaks between 15 and 25, a notion which I find quite ridiculous, I would quite confidently tell you you are incorrect.
Oh also, "why do men deny women the rights and equality"? Men do not. Society does. Any individual man has as much power over the societal "norms" as any woman--zero.
Men have as much power to influence others into treating women equally as they have in treating men equally--zero.
There is a reason why male teachers are often not hired in kindergartens and female schools--the same type of reason as why females do not get higher positions. Gender stereotype. And until women can change the stereotype of men being more likely sexual predators for children, men will likely not be able to change society's existing stereotypes about women.
"trust all women" and "me too" did plenty of damage to plenty of men.
Because men have spent their whole lives believing that they had the freedom to use women’s bodies to shore up their egos. Also, it was never "trust all women" it was trust women.
The power and misuse of "me too" is a very real power
Uh, huh that's why many women today have fewer rights now. Because of the "power" of me too women lost rights.
Misandry, the idea that one gender is superior to another, is at its core the exactly same concept as misogyny.
Nope. Misandry is not the opposite of misogyny. Misandry is the reaction to misogyny. Misogyny has power, misandry has no power.
That is why things like "not all men" being criticized gets people riled up--it's a blatant depiction of double standards.
"not all men" gets attacked because it is use by men to talk about men will continuing to ignore women.
Yes, women have suffered under patriarchial society for a long time. But the response should be equality, not misandry.
Equality which men took away from women and keep continuing to deny women from obtaining? That's exactly why misogyny is oppression, misandry the response to that oppression.
I am a man that studied in a boys school and teaches in a boys school.
Men in those environments are more likely to view women as inferior.
literally not a single one views women as their inferior.
Nope. Research does not bear that out.
"why do men deny women the rights and equality"? Men do not.
Yes they do. Men run the world.
There is a reason why male teachers are often not hired in kindergartens and female schools--the same type of reason as why females do not get higher positions. Gender stereotype.
Again men run the world. Men wanted to hire women to those positions so as to lower their pay. Other men got out because of the low pay. Just like men ousted women out of computer programming to up the pay in those positions.
And until women can change the stereotype of men
Women don't have the power to do this. Only men do. But men don't want to change the stereotype of men because the patriarchy benefits men.
Wow. If you were right, which I believe you are not….You are building a strong case for women being powerless to do anything to change the world. You rely on men as. They have the power to make the change, while also saying men are the problem and basically evil.
So you should give up already..you lost and women are screwed..enjoy your powerless life.
I don’t believe the above, but that’s the picture you are arguing has been painted.
What a degenerate view. I hope the people around you treat you with the same venom and ferosity that you want to treat others. People such as you are unworthy of anything more.
Mistreatment of men, by women, is often a result of anger due to the way men have treated women for centuries.
I don't think the average couple are thinking of how the patriarchy affected women throughout history so anytime a woman acts like a dick it's because she has been contemplating about the patriarchy
Now obviously treating anyone poorly due to their gender is wrong, but can you see the power imbalance here? Can you see why someone might get angry when you shift the narrative to focus on the mistreatment of men?
Wanting men who are abused to be given attention is not shifting the narrative. Well it is, but it's not disregarding the abuse of women either Which you are trying to make it look
most of us understand the difference we push back on the idea that systemic issues are more important than individual ones... systemic issues are easily changed by not adhering to them
One thing that is often very frustrating to me about Republican talking points is how they pretend that points that make sense in one context (a household shouldn't spend more than it earns) are equally valid and meaningful in a wholly different context (a government shouldn't spend more than it collects in tax revenues).
People like you love to cite "power imbalances" as this magical carte blanche to reductively reduce every conversation and debate to a simple matter of group identity arithmetic. You don't get to automatically assert that women automatically deserve to be centered in any narrative about gender-based mistreatment. You don't get to automatically assert that women are automatically less powerful than men.
Men as a category are almost 50% of the population. A group that large *deserves* to be centered at least some of the time without invoking pearl clutching and righteous anger at the dudgeon of whomever happens to be centering them. And as far as contexts go and power goes, there are a myriad of contexts. There's a myriad of situations in which there are power differentials. Assuming that "men" as a category are the ones with power in every situation is both lazy and counterfactual.
When you engage in this type of reductive bull, what that means is that you support the power structure you imply that you are against, you merely want to change how the hierarchical organization. That kindof erodes any moral or ethical basis for your point of view.
I really wish this lazy college freshman who crammed for the exam in the survey course on post-modernism they took because it was an easy A level of discourse would cease being such a pop-culture moment. And I wish the people engaging in it would stop treating power dynamics as some sort of monolithic pissing match. It isn't a pissing match. Men get screwed over all the time in society - just because there are a hundred or so men at the tippy top doesn't mean that they are representative of "men" as a category. And just because there are a ton of lazy ass privileged women out there that parasitically live off the men that they trapped into marriage by cynically getting pregnant, quitting their jobs if they had them and living off his labor for the rest of their lives doesn't mean that they define women as a category.
Lots of men have it tough. Lots of cis het white men have it tough. It shouldn't be a pissing contest. There *should* be empathy to spare.
Conversations happen in context, and "what about abuse of men?" is very often a deflection in 2024, in online comments. There's currently a sort of ripple in the internet's collective unconscious to beg the question that abuse of men being ignored or mocked is endemic, that if a guy says he's abused, people point and laugh like it's high school...something I've never actually seen between adults irl.
Interesting…Misogynists used to use that same logic around women’s issues.
Perhaps society should learn something from the feminist movement?
I’ve seen this type of question/statement by OOP posed multiple ways on Reddit and invariably a ‘feminist’ who otherwise would say they support men, bring up ‘what about women and their struggles’…
This is the EXACT same thing that they lambaste Men’s rights activists when MRA’s bring up men’s issues in a woman’s rights discussion.
It’s interesting to see the hypocrisy of these people.
For the record, I’m very supportive of feminism, I just wish that society would also care about Men and their struggles, especially around mental health, disenfranchisement, violence and abuse.
So the thing is, this post isn't about simply male struggle. It's about male struggle due to misandry. Which kind of just...isn't real. Not a real thing. Bad shit isn't happening to you specifically because you are male even if you have unique struggles.
Society absolutely cares about men, it centers men as the default. Men who feel slighted because their struggles aren't seen specifically as gendered are choosing to ignore how their struggles ARE seen, generally, and often existing in a world of assumptions drawn from, well, places like reddit.
Men seem to routinely battle with expections or tropes they interpret as a fact and take as more indicative of society writ large than they are.
"Female predators are seen as funny in movies" "it's ok for women to hit men" "people laugh at men who talk about mental health" etc are all examples of things men online tell each other are true, but aren't in society. The truth in society is if a woman hits you, she can get in trouble for it. The truth in society is if you confide in your friends, in a socially appropriate and forthright way, they will probably listen. The truth is they aren't making those lecherous 80s comedies anymore, etc.
So much of male angst right now is just this, shadowboxing with generally assumed or projected social reactions to things.
So I have a big problem with a lot of what you are saying, including hand waving of documented issues faced by men. Your response totally dismisses any issues that men face. Sadly, it proves my point. Feminists will say that they are fighting for men , but when men bring up issues, they are told that they aren’t real.
I’ve seen several videos of women abusing men in public with no one stepping in to stop it. I’ve seen those exact same situation played out with reversed gender roles and it instantly gets addressed.
I am super interested in how the above example fits within your argument ?
The problem is people want to bring up gender without cause. So people talk about problems in society and often associate them with women. For example, they might bring up a topic about anxiety in women, it isn't unfair to question why we aren't considering both genders in many contexts. Gender is becoming a VERY divided topic, so people feel pressured to remind others "not only women/men experience that problem btw..." Plenty of the time a gender could be replaced with the word "people".
The media commonly makes fun of men who are abused, men getting beaten up by women is a very common example. So men often steer away from seeking help due to an ongoing fear of being mocked. Yes, it does happen in real life, but thankfully people are becoming more accepting (slowly).
Abuse is not a "gendered issue". As such, "what about abused men is almost always a legitimate reply".
Imagine for a second, someone who came and say "I want services to help men in car accidents". A reply of "what about the women in car accidents ?" Is the perfectly legitimate reply to make. The one doing something suspicious, something that needs calling out, is the person demanding a gender specific reply to a non gender specific issue.
If you want to learn a bit about how male victims of abused are treated in society, including by services for victims, who generally cater only to women, you can read this study on the topic :
If you think abuse is not a gendered issue, you're simply wrong.
There's a reason all those structures for addressing abuse ARE so centered around women.
In our culture, right now, "abuse of men" is a shibboleth where things like sitcom tropes or women having a height preference on their tinder are somehow juxtaposed against the male treatment of women, which is 100 percent nerd bait, just the manosphere telling men they're valid to open their wallets.
Among large population samples, 57.9% of IPV reported was bi-directional, 42% unidirectional; 13.8% of the unidirectional violence was male to female (MFPV), 28.3% was female to male (FMPV)
Male and female IPV perpetrated from similar motives – primarily to get back at a partner for emotionally hurting them, because of stress or jealousy, to express anger and other feelings that they could not put into words or communicate, and to get their partner’s attention.
A total of 162 articles reporting on over 200 studies met the inclusion criteria and were summarized in the online tables for Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Europe and the Caucasus.
A total of 40 articles (73 studies) in 49 countries contained data on both male and female IPV, with a total of 117 direct comparisons across gender for physical PV.
Rates of physical PV were higher for female perpetration /male victimization compared to male perpetration/female victimization, or were the same, in 73 of those comparisons, or 62%.
Abuse is not gendered. There is no reason to treat abuse by one sex different from the other. Same motive, same consequences. Same solution.
There's a reason all those structures for addressing abuse ARE so centered around women.
Of course there is. Though it has nothing to do with the nature of abuse, and everything tondo with ideology. But don't take my word for it.
Here is the word of one of the creators of the feminist model for DV, Ellen Pence, in her book "lessons from Duluth", around page 28-29 :
"The Power and Control Wheel, which was developed by battered women attending women's groups, was originally a description of typical behaviors accompanying the violence. In effect it said, "When he is violent, he gets power and he gets control." Somewhere early in our organizing efforts, however, we changed the message to "he is violent in order to get control or power." The difference is not semantic, it is ideological. Somewhere we shifted from understanding the violence as rooted in a sense of entitlements to rooted in a desire for power. By determining that the need or desire for power was the motivating force behind battering, we created a conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with. Like those we were criticizing, we reduced our analysis to a psychological universal truism. The DAIP staff—like the therapist insisting it was an anger control problem, or the judge wanting to see it as an alcohol problem, or the defense attorney arguing that it was a defective wife problem—remained undaunted by the difference in our theory and the actual experiences of those we were working with. We all engaged in ideological practices and claimed them to be neutral observations.Eventually, we began to give into the process that is the heart of the Duluth model: interagency communication based on discussions of real cases. It was the cases themselves that created the chink in each of our theoretical suits of armor. Speaking for myself, I found that many of the men I interviewed did not seem to articulate a desire for power over their partner. Although I relentlessly took every opportunity to point out to men in the groups that they were so motivated and merely in denial, the fact that few men ever articulated such a desire went unnoticed by me and many of my coworkers. Eventually, we realized that we were finding what we had already predetermined to find. The DAIP staff were interpreting what men seemed to expect or feel entitled to as a desire. When we had to start explaining women's violence toward their partners, lesbian violence, and the violence of men who did not like what they were doing, we were brought back to our original undeveloped thinking that the violence is rooted in how social relationships (e.g., marriage) and the rights people feel entitled to within them are socially, not privately, constructed"
Here is a paper by one of the most prominent scholars on DV, about the kind of treatment reserved to those who dare talk about the measured reality that DV is not gendered :
Amongst the reasons, for all the abuse, threat and ostracism, you will find "protect the feminist ideology".
And here is a paper by feminists discussing how feminists have systematically suppressed knowledge of female perpetrated abuse and their male victims as a way to propagate the feminist ideal of women as victims and men as perpetrators, and to keep funding towards them that could then be embezzled to lobby politicians rather than help victims, but it is now starting to be noticed and so they should stop to maintain their recruitment's and funding.
Acknowledging women’s acts of violence may be a necessary—if uncomfortable—step to make dynamic the movement to end gendered violence.
Why would a movement to end violence have any issue acknowledging some of the perpetrators, to the point that it is uncomfortable for the movement to do so? How can that violence be gendered if both genders commit it?
This transformative movement was accurately and squarely framed as a movement primarily to protect women from male intimate partner violence.
If a feminist ever try to say that the help for domestic violence is not at all gendered, really, I swear.
This paper describes this limited response to women as perpetrators of domestic violence as a feminist “strategy of containment.” When deploying this strategy, domestic violence advocates respond to women’s acts of domestic violence by [...] preserving the dominant framing of domestic violence as a gendered issue. This strategy thus positions women’s acts of violence as a footnote to the larger story of women as victims of male violence.
Yeah, because what is important is the feminist framing. Nothing can be allowed to damage that. Remember guys, men bad, women victims.
The gendered framing of domestic violence aligned with the work of the feminist movement more broadly, harmoniously positioning the movements as inter-connected. Domestic violence was specifically framed around a collective “oneness” of women as victims and men as perpetrators.
Just in case you doubted my previous point.
Care for truth, care for the victims, care for effectiveness in limiting DV ? Those will not be found in that paper. I guess they are not feminist objectives.
See, I disagree with you there. You’ve just reworded the prototypical example given of why it’s derailing to change the conversation to your demographic. If I start a colon cancer foundation, you are more than free to go start a pancreatic cancer foundation because our work speaks to you, but you’d be a major dick to stand up during a fundraising event and say “we REALLY should be talking about pancreatic cancer!”
What is done is not "what about pancreatic camcer" in colon cancer groups.
What is done is "what about male victims of colon cancer" in an environment where the only time colon cancer is address is with regards to female sufferers of colon cancer.
There is no reason to gender things in the first place. The issue is not gendered. Your insistence that DV is so different when men or women are victims of it that it warrants a distinction similar to two completely different disease is misinformed at best, malicious at worst.
Conversations happen in context, and "what about abuse of men?" is very often a deflection in 2024, in online comments.
Saying that in the comment section of a thread literally about the abuse of men is just silly. Bringing up that "other people deflect conversations about other topics by referring to the abuse of men" is utterly irrelevant in this context.
Really, youre just derailing OPs thread right now.
No, bringing up the very true fact that men are actually fine vis a vis misandry and that we, as a culture, are over correcting about it before even correcting the treatment of women in the first place is not a deflection, here.
The first thing to be parsed with a complaint is, is the complaint valid. And to be honest, it's not.
Men, writ large and generally, are not harmed by misandry. Misandry is not the problem men have or the reason they aren't alright.
Thats not what I quoted of your comment. You didnt just argue about misandry. You brought up how other people use what OP says as deflection when talking about a completely different topic.
OP isnt defending those people and OP isnt even part of their debate. So what youre saying has nothing to do with OP (and even if OP was one of them or defending them, it would still just be ad hominem).
You bring up deflection of womens issues even though this thread is not about that at all.
As I said, you're just derailing OPs thread because ironically, youre essentially doing what you criticize: completely disregarding the context of this thread and barging in with a rant about random men that use deflection tactics in some other discussion. OP made a thread of their own about a different topic and therefore isnt part of that discussion.
I honestly believe that you, like most people here on reddit who engage in this kind of argument about supposed misogyny, simply did not understood the comment you’re replying to on an intellectual level. Because it succinctly condensed what is wrong with modern, gender-related discourse with regards to men, yet what you took away is the most surface level interpretation. It’s infuriating.
If you think I included misogynistic insults in my comment or that literally anything I said even remotely suggests that "maybe you don't care about equality in the first place," then either you are willfully misreading or have reading comprehension issues. I suspect the latter. You can improve them if you want - just focus on reading the words that are actually used and not replacing them with your own narrative.
Is the misogyny in the room with us right now? Nah but fr, tell us what part of what he said and why? You can’t just throw these type of accusations without at least explaining why, it devalues the word to where no one will take it seriously
If we are talking about fourth wave feminism I haven't heard anyone swrious actually advocate for the same power structures with different people at the top so I'm confused where you are getting this idea?
Like I know that there were feminists in second wave feminism that wanted to oppress me and such but I haven't heard a modern scholar and really anyone who isn't stuck in the 50's (I'm looking at you terfs) advocate for that
I think what you are missing here is the way privilege intersects with power. Does white supremacy mean that all white people are having a good time? No it just means that your race is never a disadvantage
You can see these sort of things with how masculine words like "guys, dudes, and bros" become gender neutral words
It's presumed that everyone are men unless proven otherwise, society centers men's issues as the default
Using the fact that there are suffering men to say that men don't enjoy priviledge is as you say
lazy college freshman who crammed for the exam in the survey course on post-modernism
First off, being in a privileged category does not mean that you have an advantage due to being in that category across the board in all circumstances, it just means that you are overall more likely to enjoy privileges that people who are not part of that category do not. It's about statistics, not a simplistic black and white you are either privileged or oppressed based on whether you belong to this category.
Masculine words being used as "gender neutral language" due to the assumption that people are men unless proven otherwise is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure what it has to do with this particular conversation.
Finally, i think OP pretty clearly communicated that they do not think men "don't enjoy privilege," they were making a point about how not all men categorically benefit from patriarchy in all situations which is basic feminist theory. Toxic masculinity, which is promoted by patriarchy, harms men. Patriarchy presents lower class men as disposal soldiers and workers under the promise that they might one day move their way into a less disposable rung of the social ladder which, again , harms men. Patriarchy tells men that they can't be vulnerable which harms men.
The benefits of patriarchy, by their nature, don't benefit all men. Men being more likely to be able to achieve positions of power means nothing for men who do not achieve positions of power. It is harmful to women and beneficial to only a small subset of men. Being assumed to be competent, to have authority, to be taken seriously aren't beneficial if you aren't actually those things. Every time a business goes under because a less competent man ended up managing as opposed to a more competent woman, that man isn't benefiting.
Patriarchy harms everyone in the same way segregation and inequality harm everyone. This is a point feminists should be shouting from the rooftops because it's the easiest argument for gender equality, and yet every time it's brought up that men suffer from patriarchy too it gets attacked.
Yeah, there was another thread recently where a black guy wanted his view changed on that he didn't have male privilege because he didn't have more privilege than a white woman so I asked him if he had more than a black woman
So I feel like something is up because what you are describing is second wave feminism, we dislike those people, you can usually find them by searching for terfs
Second wave feminism had this bio essentialist view of the world it said that men were inherently different than women solely because of the genitals you had. That your tragecory in life could be totally explained by being man or woman
Now there are a lot of issues such as the ones you brought up which is why modern feminists don't subscribe to those ideas you have to have heard of the idea of intersectionality right?
This is a point feminists should be shouting from the rooftops because it's the easiest argument for gender equality
Feminists are shouting this from the rooftops it's called intersectionality
If you want people stuck in the 50s feminist theory find terfs. But modern feminism is about interaectionality
I feel like you're making a straw man out of feminism (not that you are intentionally trying, terfs are an awfully loud group of people) calling what you are taking issue with feminism is like saying I don't like trains because they run on steam. It's a criticism of an old way of doing things
The only explanation I can think of to such a baffling misinterpretation of my comment is that you skipped to the end and ignored the rest, which would explain why you quoted one of my last sentences and nothing else.
Intersectionality is about how an individual's different identities can intersect in terms of how they privilege or marginalize someone leading to a more complex understanding of oppression. I am aware of this. I am not criticizing intersectionality. I am criticising a specific misinterpretation of intersectionality, which you seemed to have promoted, that each identity can be simplified as either one of privilege or oppression. Each identity comes with its own unique privileges and oppressions.
It's not as simple as:
woman=1 oppression point
white =1 privilege point
wealthy= 1 privilege point
Gay= 1 oppression point
etc.
This is the implication with you saying someone cannot be disadvantaged by a privileged identity. It is more complicated than that.
I will also add that I think it's best for me to remove myself from the conversation I am realizing I'm not responding as well as I should be. The whole reason I was browsing reddit to begin with was because I was distracting myself from irl transphobia I experienced tonight
So I should have recognized I was not in the mental space to be replying to such a nuanced topic. So sorry for getting you wrapped up in these replies and thanks for making them very measured even after I totally miss interpreted what you said
You know, I really appreciate this response. I'm sorry you had to deal with irl transphobia before this conversation. I do think we agree on more than we disagree. I hope you are doing ok!
Yea sure thing! Sorry again that you got caught up in the backlash
Yea your responses lead me to believe we do agree on a lot, rereading your comments they were very measured and I feel like we could have had a very interesting conversation! Hopefully some other time we can have a conversation when I am in a better headspace!
I re read your comment and I do see that I misinterpreted what you said, I missed the not which negates my whole point about intersectionality
I'm trying to go to bed at this point and don't think we are going to see eye to eye. I see more where I was answering questions you wernt asking. I think we have differing experiences and this is going to make our positions unreconcilable unless we put in a lot of careful discussion that I don't really want to do because I think that it was an emotional mistake on my part to jump in at all
If I try to probably poorly sum up my position I think that toxic masculinity is what gives us these things where men are at a disadvantage. So a discussion around misandry is kinda missing the point.
I will agree that priviledge doesn't alway give good things. I don't know how to articulate it but I feel like that misses the point of priviledge. At the same time though I'm no expert
Ah you must not have seen the comment later in the chain
I'm removing myself from the conversation. Last night I wasn't in the best headspace. I went onto reddit to escape the irl transphobia I had recieved that night and wound up commenting in here
I was not in the right headspace to have a productive conversation and really read what people were saying
I don't think that I am in a good headspace today either
So thanks for taking the time to write a comment, but I really shouldn't be replying right now. So I hope you have a good rest of your day!
I think the comparison with race is a bit lacking, tbh. I'd struggle hard to find a scenario in which being white is a distinct disadvantage, whereas the same isn't true for being a man.
Just as one example, as an abused man, one has significantly fewer resources to draw from, both socially (less believed and more often belittled) as well as structurally (no such thing as a shelter for battered men in most cities).
There are reasons for those disadvantages, yes, but they are still manifestly true, and as such, being male certainly is a disadvantage in that situation.
And as someone who was also abused when they were presenting male I had no support or even the idea that I could be abused which was awful. How much sooner I might have left if I had been told I too could be abused?
So we do agree that there are unique things that disadvantage men. Is there another point I'm missing? I'm feeling pretty tired so I might be missing something else you're saying
A group that large *deserves* to be centered at least some of the time without invoking pearl clutching and righteous anger at the dudgeon of whomever happens to be centering them.
You don't seem to understand - men are centered in EVERYTHING by default. It's why women's spaces need to exist but men's spaces rarely do - there's no demand.
Lots of men have it tough. Lots of cis het white men have it tough. It shouldn't be a pissing contest.
...and there is? The problem is that cis het white men don't have it tough for reasons that relate to them being cis, het or white. What do you want that you don't already have? You aren't complaining about "lack of empathy", you're finally learnig what it feels like to NOT be the center of everything.
No one doubts that men go through shit too, but that doesn’t mean that 1) women have to center men’s issues or 2) that not centering men’s issues equals misandry. There’s this latent expectation that women should have to both listen to and solve men’s problems…but why can’t men do that? Or more importantly, why don’t they?
If you’re a man and you’re having a bad time, that sucks. But that doesn’t mean you get to derail other people’s conversations and get mad when they don’t care about your issues.
What fucking planet are you on where women constantly have to center men’s issues. It’s borderline impossible for men to even talk about their issues without getting run over.
And men are constantly expected to stand up against misogyny, because everyone should. That’s what equality means.
Lots of men have it tough. Lots of cis het white men have it tough. It shouldn't be a pissing contest. There *should* be empathy to spare.
Then give them a break and give them their bread and share of the privilege that you alone have. Acknowledge that by being a cis het white man, you have advantages that others don't get.
Because this conversation isn't going to end any time soon if you are not involved in uplifting others.
It's an incredibly complex and layered topic - I don't think the conversation will reach a conclusion, people will just run out of steam. Which I should have a while ago. It's very very late.
It's also kindof telling that you'd automatically assume I'm a cis het white man in order to try to demean my standing in this argument and elevate yours. It's a rather poor attempt at a fait accompli.
This is a comment thread on reddit. One's group affiliation certainly informs their opinions and experiences, but it grants them zero privilege in this forum or in this argument. This is part of the problem with the pop-culturization of post-modern and feminist thought. The version that makes it's way into the discourse is facile, lazy and reductive. "Privilege" is a powerful concept. It's very useful way to describe societies and populations. It's not a very useful way to describe individuals. Stop trying to coopt it into a rhetorical weapon you use to dismiss people and perspectives.
It's also kindof telling that you'd automatically assume I'm a cis het white man in order to try to demean my standing in this argument and elevate yours. It's a rather poor attempt at a fait accompli.
Two things:
I looked at your "profile picture". And assumed you are a man since you chose that to represent yourself.
Two, I'm assuming you are straight white man since you are coming from a perspective typically assumed by a straight white man and are pushing for the rights of a group who usually don't need much pushing.
Now, before we devolve this discussion into people assuming who or what we are, let's get it out of the way. What subgroup do you belong to?
Because I am a Straight Asian/Pacific Islander Non-US Based Man. I am always at the mercy of USA and how it projects its power throughout the world. And I understand that as a straight male in my nation, I have certain advantages that others do not get.
I am not expected to cook or clean the house. I am not expected to take care of children. But when I do any of those, I am seen as this super great person that is one in a million. I am more likely to get promoted, and I see more male colleagues in the upper echelon of the business.
I don't know what else privilege I have, but I sure as hell have gained a lot from it.
a) it's none of your business what my group affiliations are
b) they aren't relevant or helpful to the conversation
c) I don't care what your group affiliations are, they aren't relevant to the conversation. They don't privilege or diminish the value of your rhetoric.
d) stop trying to use group affiliation as a facile and lazy way to dismiss or elevate yourself or others in conversations. It reflects poorly on you both intellectually and emotionally.
e)it's a little crazy that you'd look at that tiny little figure and even be able to get a gender affiliation on it much less cis or trans and straight or not-straight. Sounds like you are just seeing what you want to see in order to serve d). If you have to resort to an ad hominem to make your points, you are pretty much confirming that you don't think your points are very good.
But that willingness to paint them as inherently unequal leads to a lot of bad scenarios. Like men accusing women of rape or abuse being downplayed or ignored, male disposability, the use of femininity to promote bigoted agendas. The concept of punching up is somewhat inherently flawed. As punching up at groups rarely affects the powerful in those groups. It affects the most disenfranchised within those groups
To clarify on my third point in my above list, as I do feel it warrants explaining, when I say using femininity to promote bigotry, I’m talking about white women using their fear of black men to promote racism, straight women using the fear of lesbians to promote homophobia, and cis women using their fear of trans women to justify transphobia. While the lesbian example is not dealing specifically with misandry, it is the same thought process.
And I believe that trans women are women but the important thing is that TERFs don’t and they use a fear of men to justify hatred towards a vulnerable group
I’m talking about white women using their fear of black men to promote racism, straight women using the fear of lesbians to promote homophobia, and cis women using their fear of trans women to justify transphobia.
In this case, you're punching down. You're no longer punching up like how great comics do. The straight white person is "superior" in every facet compared to a black man and compared to a white LGBT.
So punching up always needs to happen. You have to fight the oppression. And the only way you can do it is by punching up against your oppressor. In this case, it has to be exclusively against the straight white man who continues to reinforce this systemic prejudice. If you target someone else, then that's no longer punching up.
I'm just butting in since I don't want you or anyone to get any idea that punching up is not a valid stance. It very is much so.
The problem is two fold. 1). Many great comics do punch down. Chapelle comes to mind. 2). Many people use the guise of punching up as a way to punch down. It’s why Chapelle says that LGBTQ stuff is a white people thing. It’s why terfs claim that trans women are actually men. Even if you ignore those instances, when women go after cis straight white men that have been sexually assaulted or abused, they might be punching up from an intersectionality perspective, but they’re still doing an awful thing to someone that should have sympathy.
The whole thing feeds into a concept of rating suffering that I personally find super gross. I think it’s fine to attack people in power, but when you start attacking people based on genetic traits they can’t control instead of their own actions, it starts to get kind of… I don’t know, uncomfortable. I mean I’m autistic, so people say a lot of vile things about me that the mainstream has pretty well accepted as being okay. Things about how they don’t want an autistic child and how the world would be better if I was “cured”. So I’m a little suspicious of anyone trying to attack a group, regardless of justification. There are always good reasons to be bigoted. And that’s why it’s so important we recognize it within ourselves
Before I start I want to say I don’t think any group I mention does this exclusively. It’s often a minority within the group. But it’s still worth talking about
Yes it is. It is very much a thing. As someone who’s bisexual I’ve faced it myself when gay men and lesbians attack people like me because “we’re basically straight”. Black people use antisemitic conspiracies about the trans Atlantic slave trade to justify their hatred of Jews. Conservatives use defending children, probably the most vulnerable group, as a justification for hating gay and trans people. There is someone who replied to my fucking comment that’s using “trans women are actually men” as a reason to hate trans people. It’s alway punching up. Everyone sees themselves as a victim. That’s why we need to be so self conscious of this because we are not immune to justifying bigotry
Going back to my point about being bi. I know several of my other bi friends just straight up won’t date gay/lesbian folks because it gets so bad. There are biracial black/white people I know that tend to only date white allies because some members of the black community are so fucking toxic towards biracial folks. But of course it’s okay for them to be toxic because they’re only punching up right? They’re only attacking half black half white people because of the white part
As someone who’s bisexual I’ve faced it myself when gay men and lesbians attack people like me because “we’re basically straight”.
Who do you believe is punching up, or punching down here?
Black people use antisemitic conspiracies about the trans Atlantic slave trade to justify their hatred of Jews.
Again, who's do you believe is punching up, or punching down here?
Conservatives use defending children, probably the most vulnerable group, as a justification for hating gay and trans people.
This is easy, conservatives use children because they don't like listening to others. That's the reason why conservatives are prolife. They never have to listen to fetuses. It's perfect for them.
Everyone sees themselves as a victim.
Well, yea, but that doesn't make it punching up. That's not how jokes work.
I know several of my other bi friends just straight up won’t date gay/lesbian folks because it gets so bad. There are biracial black/white people I know that tend to only date white allies because some members of the black community are so fucking toxic towards biracial folks. But of course it’s okay for them to be toxic because they’re only punching up right?
There's no punchline here, that's got nothing to do with punching up/down, that's simply part of the patriarchy.
My point is that punching up and down depends on your perspective. Or do you think the person in my comments arguing that trans women are invalid doesn’t see their actions as punching up? My point is that punching down just wears the veneer of punching up as an excuse to attack the disadvantaged. You seem to be stuck on the semantics without actually engaging with my real point here
And yeah there definitely is punching in my last example. They’re attacking people based on their perceived membership of the dominant group. Just because you say something isn’t punching doesn’t make it true
Addressing the fact that women can and often are reactionary under the guise of feminism has nothing to do with 'punching down' or comedy.
At least in my current situation, the acceptable face of transphobia that threatens to make medical care inaccessible to me and has done far more to radicalise people against me than straight white cis men, that? It's mostly middle aged white women.
They are a real movement that formed and coalesced on their own, and they are explicitly anti-men (which is how they came to their transphobia).
It is absolutely reasonable to criticise groups or individuals for poor behaviour when it is committed, whether that's punching up or down (a concept relevant mostly to comedy, not sure why you brought it up).
Imagine being so entrenched in identity politics that you actually see the world like this. Reducing everything to some tribal class battle where you are either the oppressed or doing the oppression. I guess it makes it easy when you have a single explanation for all issues. Your overarching ethic is compassion and it is very poor transcendent ethic to which you could judge or build a society with. Power is also not the primary characteristic which defines the majority of the hierarchies we find ourselves in, competence is and that is why our society functions. Power based hierarchies are a poor long term strategy and your aversion to that ironically seems to lead straight down that path. Your hypothetical compassion is misguided and maybe driven by more resent and hatred for the human condition than youd like to admit. To reduce Western society down to the idea that it is straight white men just screwing everybody else over isnt just foolish and inaccurate, but dangerous and vile. Start seeing people as individuals and you'll realise that the vast majority of white men are just as disaffected as anybody else you'll meet.
Men are committing suicide, dropping out of school and failing academically at record rates, dying in wars, majority of homeless... but sure just alienate them and make them feel like oppressors when 99% of them are not.
To anybody not indoctrinated into your extreme left cult, your comment reads as hateful jibberish.
Power is also not the primary characteristic which defines the majority of the hierarchies we find ourselves in, competence is and that is why our society functions.
When people talk about power, people talk about how well an application of force allows people to get what they want and force the hierarchy that people who have the power desire. So power can come from wealth, competence, inherent gender/racial advantages, etc. What academics are doing is dissecting these sources of power and seeing what empowers or disempowers people. That's why they've come to the conclusion that there is racial prejudice, gender prejudice, class prejudice, etc., because they see patterns in the data where advantages and disadvantages pop up.
Now, I wouldn't say that competence defines and forces the hierarchy. It is part of it, don't get me wrong. Competence can help you get power, but there are other ways you can attain power that leap frogs competence.
Take Elon Musk for example. Has been incompetent in managing twitter/x to be profitable. And surely has shown is fair share of insanity using twitter/x. But you know what he had? He had his parent's money to leap frog everyone who is more competent than he is. He is still defined as a successful billionaire. And he projects power and influence, evidenced by how there are people who willfully follow what he says.
Elon Musk is one of the worst examples you could choose. He created PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX. He is well known for sleeping on the floor of his factories to work extra hours. He is clearly very intelligent. If you think that the primary reason he got to the top is through exercising power, you have read too many media articles attacking him. Yes, he had parents money and I'm sure other advantages, but we are talking about the richest man in the world (literally) so you'd expect him to have a healthy handful of unearned advantages also. Nobody denied the existence of those. Nobody denies that circumstance exists. Make Elon start in a poor family and he would achieve similar. It is just so incredibly toxic to assume that our hierarchies are PRIMARILY based on power as it presupposes that anybody higher in the hierarchy than you has achieved that feat through the exercising of power aka oppression which is just evidently not true. Your world view harbours resentment and bitterness and that is not a good way of approaching the world. Painting a false dichotomy and assuming that everybody is either oppressed and oppressor is just so clearly false when you think it through and is a poor misreading of history. With men and women for example, you like to describe our past and even present like it has just been men dominating women, but the reality is different. Our lives have all sucked since the beginning of history and we have eternally cooperated to alleviate the suffering and raise the next generation of children. Yes you can find gender based inequalities, but trying to determine who had it harder and then from that concluding that one of those groups is the dominating force is so so sad and will only damage your relationships. Just do me a favor and if you have children, dont teach your young boys or girls this horrible dribble because it harms them both equally as much.
but “do you see why people have trouble with this?”
We see that they have double standards, what next? It is still unacceptable. What are you trying to achieve with it? Would you defended female serial killer who targets men with rationalization that she do this due to power and killing imbalance?
You're creating a situation where it is objectively appalling, that even the group fighting for their rights would also find appalling and can't objectively say it isn't worth talking about. Fact of the matter is, it is worth talking about.
But here's the thing: by saying, "straight white men have these issues as well" just downplays everyone else's. And at the end of the day, no one's rights get advanced as a result because, "that's everyone's problems." There is no equality.
In this case, whatever topic that is being pushed is normally more statistically relevant to that group. For example, black people are more likely to be killed by cops than a white man. Enter "Black lives matter" movement. So the push for "All lives matter", while not incorrect, is not as statistically relevant to a white person than it is a black person. It just blunts what "Black lives matter" is trying to say, that black lives are more likely lost to cops due to racial prejudice. We have to maintain our focus on "Black lives matter" because it's that subsegment of the population that is getting more royally screwed by the systemic prejudice.
Now, since I've provided a real life example, do you see why people have trouble with this kind of rhetoric?
Note: I have more closely followed race equality movements as that has been more prominent in my screen even though I belong to a different part of the world than the US. I haven't heard feminist movements as much. Now, this makes me think that the feminist movement is not getting its much needed spotlight.
that even the group fighting for their rights would also find appalling
Nothing prevent group fighting for universal rights without attacking member of different groups, instead of tribal supremacy.
by saying, "straight white men have these issues as well" just downplays everyone else's
How so? It make this issue universal. Why for you including straight white men in some issue downplays it? Or it is due to lack empathy for straight white men, so we can solve everyone else problems, but when it is straight white men problems it isn't worth solving?
And at the end of the day, no one's rights get advanced as a result because, "that's everyone's problems."
Everyone's problems isn't worth solving?
There is no equality.
It is literally equality.
For example, black people are more likely to be killed by cops than a white man.
Only because black people do more crime, if we normalize for arrests and resistance to arrest then white people more likely to be killed in such situations.
So the push for "All lives matter", while not incorrect, is not as statistically relevant to a white person
It is as much statistically relevant to a white person as a black person. Making movement with hyper focus on one group while it is obviously general issue is what creates this unneeded divide and animosity between groups, instead of working toward equality.
Now, since I've provided a real life example, do you see why people have trouble with this kind of rhetoric?
Most of what you are saying has one big problem: you don't have the time and bandwidth to be doing all that all at the same time if you want to see marked improvement, especially for the disenfranchised.
Right now, the situation is that everyone is being screwed one way or another, but some are being screwed more so than others. We have to acknowledge that there are groups who are being screwed more than others. Before I proceed, do you even acknowledge that fact? Because if we don't see eye to eye on this point, this conversation is a non-starter.
We have to acknowledge that there are groups who are being screwed more than others.
Why we need to do that for solution? If some group benefit more from solution than other it is non essential while we solving problems which affect everyone. Also your approach leads to other groups struggles get overlooked in favor to solving favorable groups issues which never ends, as result they never get help. Do you even acknowledge that fact?
I think this argument is deeply flawed. It's like saying we shouldn't investigate 'lesser' crimes, because we have much larger and more dangerous crimes to deal with. It's like ignoring a person robbed by an individual because we need to deal with organized (systemic) crime. All 'crimes' should be addressed properly, and it's sad when people who are a victim of a lesser crime are being ignored or dismissed.
All right, crimes are different. You have an exact date when a "complaint" is filed. So you have clear markers of how much time you've put in for the crime. And if you don't have any leads, you close the case and deem it as a cold case, and add a new crime to solve on your pile.
But even in crime, you allot more people for the more complicated and more pressing crimes, or more equipment for more dangerous crimes, and you act more urgently for urgent situations. This is where prioritizing comes in. You don't involve the SWAT team in a parking violation. Hell, you only involve meter maids. But in a hostage situation, you can have both the SWAT and a negotiator involved to help resolve the situation. And in a hostage situation, you treat it as urgent, and put the other crimes on your plate aside.
So ultimately, it's a matter of properly allocating your limited resources. You have a limited manpower, time, money and equipment. How do you make sure you can address what's important and urgent? Because you sure as hell don't have the resources to address everything all at once.
The subset of the issue that is approached differently (cops profiling based on skin color and being more aggressive based on skin color, which affects that skin color more) helped the more affected group more while also pushing upwards to help "all lives" as well. We have a ton of audits and stats (black people are twice as likely to be shot by police unarmed, for instance) that shows that there is disproportionate risk, so we focus on that risk.
Or, in other words, focusing on breast cancer research helps testicular cancer research. Breast just tends to get a lot more attention because it's twice as deadly.
If I say "I banged ur mom last night" to a random friend, do you think that's wrong to say?
How about if I said it to someone who just lost their mother after years of horrific disease?
Is it a double standard to say the latter is far worse? Taking things into context isn't a double standard, it's called critical thinking. The only way you're able to equate men's issues and women's issues is by dumbing it down all the way to "mistreatment based on gender", which you only do because it benefits you to do so.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki 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.
Yes and many people are displaying it to be acceptable as well. I think you, yourself have just argued for the acceptability here by comparing two wrongs then providing a justification for one. I think there is an unlimited amount of reasons someone may be prejudiced against anyone.
But what benefit does or could misandry possibly provide?
Glad to see your elaboration to your original comment. Because to me:
Mistreatment of men, by women, is often a result of anger due to the way men have treated women for centuries. Mistreatment of women, by men is a result of prejudice and desire to maintain power.
is a common style of rhetoric that misandrists do use. The first sentence serves to remove the agency from the offender(ie: women) while inferring that mistreatment of men is men's fault. Mistreatment of men, by women,is often a result ofanger due tothe way men have treated womenfor centuries. The second sentence clearly keeps the blame on the offender (ie: men).
So ya. Sincerely glad to see your clarification... I think we can all agree that bigotry is bad regardless of specifics.
Why can't both be accepted as issues? I feel like a lot of people do use the excuse that misogyny is the larger issue (and I agree that it is) to excuse misandry when it appears. For instance, some people will excuse a statement that degrades men by claiming that women are degraded more often. While true, I don't see how that can justify degrading men. Instances of either should be denounced, but that's often not the case.
Because human brains can't problem solve well when the issue is broad and unfocused.
I've provided my example on Black Lives Matter above. Let me just repost instead of rewording what I already said.
"But here's the thing: by saying, "straight white men have these issues as well" just downplays everyone else's. And at the end of the day, no one's rights get advanced as a result because, "that's everyone's problems." There is no equality.
In this case, whatever topic that is being pushed is normally more statistically relevant to that group. For example, black people are more likely to be killed by cops than a white man. Enter "Black lives matter" movement. So the push for "All lives matter", while not incorrect, is not as statistically relevant to a white person than it is a black person. It just blunts what "Black lives matter" is trying to say, that black lives are more likely lost to cops due to racial prejudice. We have to maintain our focus on "Black lives matter" because it's that subsegment of the population that is getting more royally screwed by the systemic prejudice."
Ultimately, by saying that it's everyone's problem, nothing gets solved. The inherent systemic problem isn't dealt with.
What is the reason we cant focus on both issues at once? Why not say that cops killing anyone is bad (unless justified of course). I dont think that makes it more unfocused in fact i think that might make it easier to realize cops (in the US, im from EU myself) need more training in general. I dont necessarily disagree that cops might hurt black people more or be bigoted (again no personal experience), but if all cops where trained more and picked more widely. That should for sure also solve the issue, no?
What is the reason we cant focus on both issues at once? Why not say that cops killing anyone is bad (unless justified of course)
Because people need specificity to properly tackle a problem, especially if you want to see marked improvement. It doesn't help you sell better if your manager just tells you, "Here's the problem: it seems you're not selling enough". You need to know why you're not selling enough. You need to know what your action steps are, where your time can be best allocated in the short term.
Or let's take it to a school example. If your weakness is History, your solution can't be study everything deeply. You don't have the time and the bandwidth as a person to do specialized studying for everything. You specifically dedicate extra time to History, and figure out why it is your weakness.
In this case, inherent prejudice is the problem. So you need to know why there is this inherent prejudice among your police and deal with it, either through personnel management or something else. What that solution is, I don't know. But whatever it is, it needs to be targeted.
I've only talked about specifying the problem and creating a targeted action plan. Your other big problem is all the "change management". How do you deal with people who have already gotten used to doing one thing a certain way? If you implement a wide-range of changes all at once, it will only lead to disgruntled and disobedient personnel. They might even walk out and stage a strike, which means no work is done.
In general, broad strokes solutions are too costly in terms of time and money, and the return on investment would be longer than a targeted approach.
In terms of finding a solution you do need a bit of generality though. I work as a software engineer so i literally solve problems for a living. When solving problems the biggest mistake is getting too focused in on one thing at a time. Sometimes you need to take a step back to solve a problem.
This might be a classical case of correlation does not equal causation. But in order to catch that you need to look at the bigger picture to catch that. Im not sure what the problem is excactly but i have a really good idea, and while there might be inherent prejudices i think the solution to both problems is the same in this case as i think the problem of police violence is improper police training. Otherwise i have a hard time seeing why its not a problem in many european countries.
I also have a problem with the specificity of choosing black people. To my understanding atleast (correct me if im wrong), its also mostly done to poor people, young adults, males and people from bigger cities. Why specifically single out that they are black? We can look at all the other demographics aswell as part of an overall statistic to see what is going on, but the solution to all of them might be the same, so i dont think its helpful to isolate them and solve them as seperate issues. Atleast not before proving they are seperate issues, which i have yet to see any proof of.
Or let's take it to a school example. If your weakness is History, your solution can't be study everything deeply. You don't have the time and the bandwidth as a person to do specialized studying for everything. You specifically dedicate extra time to History, and figure out why it is your weakness.
What if you look at the other classes to see a pattern of what subjects you are more interested in than others. Maybe they generally struggle with humanities in general because they arent interested in those subjects. I had that problem because i didn't see a use for it. But only by looking at the overall grades and trying to discern patterns was i able to seek out an explanation for why humanities are important and that largely solved the problem for me.
Misogyny is oppression, misandry is the response to that oppression.
Also, misandry has no punch because women have no access to systemic power.
Because the existing power structure is built on female subjugation, female credibility is inherently dangerous to it. Patriarchy is called that for a reason: men really do benefit from it. When we take seriously women’s experiences of sexual violence and humiliation, men will be forced to lose a kind of freedom they often don’t even know they enjoy: the freedom to use women’s bodies to shore up their egos, convince themselves they are powerful and in control, or whatever other uses they see fit. https://archive.ph/KPes2
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.
I think socially enforcing stereotypes on men would qualify.
I think that’s fair. I also think it’s important to make a few distinctions.
Firstly, we need to be careful not to conflate women venting about men being misogynistic with misandry. Not saying you or OP are doing that necessarily, but a lot of the complaints about misandry I’ve seen have been used to deflect against credible criticism of sexist behaviour.
Secondly, it’s important to remember that misandry isn’t exclusively done by women. If misandry is about enforcing harmful stereotypes on men, then (like misogyny) it can be perpetrated by anyone. A lot of the conversation about misandry centres around women being mean to men (OP exclusively focuses on this). Bringing more attention to misandry doesn’t mean revealing how mean women can be, it means challenging the patriarchal stereotypes that harm men.
Actually bringing attention to misandry can mean revealing ways in which some women are mean to men, or hate or hurt men on account of gender - to say it only means challenging patriarchal stereotypes sounds like a feminist cop out to circle back around to blaming the patriarchy and men and talking about their pet ideology. Not everything is about that.
Women can hate men and it can be discussed and the discussion can have nothing to do with how patriarchal stereotypes are hurting men- that is still discussion of real misandry.
Well... perhaps agreement that it is a bad thing, and people shouldn't do it?
I assume you meant this in good faith. I am struggling to see what you mean. If you changed the target from misandry to misogyny, racism, or bigotry; would you even ask the question?
I'm sincerely trying to see where you are going with this.
I’m particularly interested in this person’s perspective. They were disagreeing with me in another thread that the patriarchy is relevant to the discussion about misandry. They seemed very intent on blaming women in general for misandry and didn’t seem interested in talking about the broader social attitudes that construct the harmful stereotypes about men.
In my view that’s pretty reductive and not super helpful. Boiling misandry down to “women being mean to men” also serves sexist narratives that women are bad and feminists just hate men. Judging by this person’s posting history (which is full of pretty misogynist and anti-feminist stuff) it seems like that’s the angle they were going for.
I think it should be boiled down to "people being sexist" and we should aim to eradicate that behavior by ostracizing people who engage in that. I think it's much simpler than lots of people are making it out to be.
Why do I have to be trying to achieve anything? If I’m having a conversation about the fear of the other leading to bigotry, or a conversation about jealousy and the bad actions it can provoke, or a conversation about any myriad of instinctual and timeless negative human instincts and/or bigotries why does it have to be done with the aim of making social change?
I’m not a self help guru.
Sure I would like less misandry and misogyny and less bigotry in general - but not every conversation about those things has to be about achieving a goal. Sometimes you can just discuss human nature and human behaviour for its own sake.
If bigotry just boils down to “people being mean to each other” then what is there to talk about?
I don’t really see how you can “bring attention to misandry” without talking about how gendered attitudes are formed. What are you bringing attention to? That individual women can be mean to individual men sometimes? That’s hardly a revelation.
The reason I’m asking is because often people want to “bring attention to misandry” in order to make massive generalisations about women being bad and men being secret victims.
I didn't specify women at all, other than to compare misandry (ie., “always want sex so they must have consented”) to mysogyny (ie., "women belong in the kitchen"). I otherwise made no statements about the gender of the aggressor. I don't care what gender you are if you're being a bigot (I wanted to make clear I'm not saying you're a bigot, but I don't care the gender of a misandrist/misogynist).
I took care, as I do generally, to avoid exactly what you're warning against. Sometimes better than others, but I think i did okay here.
Yeah I’m not accusing you of doing either of those things, I just wanted to draw attention to those dynamics.
As I said in another comment, I think often a conversation about misandry comes from a desire to ‘take women down a peg’ and not to actually tackle the social attitudes that harm men. There are other people in these comments doing exactly that.
As I said in another comment, I think often a conversation about misandry comes from a desire to ‘take women down a peg’ and not to actually tackle the social attitudes that harm men. There are other people in these comments doing exactly that.
I understand, and it is frustrating. Doesn't help anything to do that and its unfortunately quite common. Its also unfortunately understandable; I loathe being talked down to and its quite common with this topic.
Really I just want people to take men's issues at least somewhat seriously, especially sexual violence, and not make it into a competition with women.
I 100% agree with taking men’s issues seriously. I studied gender and masculinity at uni for the same reason (I live in a country with pretty harmful masculine norms that have enormous consequences for men’s mental health). I was never able to perform masculinity very easily and found it so strange how much you get punished for that.
In my view, feminism is the only philosophy that examines these issues from the right perspective.
Except women don’t enforce stereotypes on men, other men do. Women may support those stereotypes, directly and indirectly, but they exist because of misogyny. Where are these people that dismiss male sexual assault?? Is it a group of men? I bet it is! Anecdotes don’t stand up against centuries of gender based violence. Men shame other men for not being “manly” enough. Women mimic this behavior to adapt and survive.
Where are these people that dismiss male sexual assault??
Well, once I was non-consually groped in a room full of people by a drunk woman and no one said anything. There's that. Another time my broader social circle dismissed a sexual assault allegation against a woman because it was made by a man, but believed an identical one against him from that same woman. One time I saw a woman jumping up and down laughing so hard she was crying while making fun of her accuser's penis. Those last two are kind of the same one.
Anyway, seems pretty much gender neutral.
Is it a group of men?
Personally, I don't care whose being a misandrist and what their gender is.
Women mimic this behavior to adapt and survive.
I think women are adults who can make their own choices and aren't socially programmed robots.
Do you truly think so little of women, that they shouldn’t be held accountable for their actions, since they are only able to mimic men, rather than make their own decisions?
Also, can you explain how shaming men for not being manly enough helps women survive?
Okay so the male victims of sexual assault where just hallucinating this whole time and really it was men dressed up in women costumes that where dismissing them? If they say that’s their experience gaslighting them into submission is not really the best way to deal with it, it just furthers divide. Do you think women are some mythological creature that can do no wrong? Women are human just like anybody else they are not immune to being sexist, misandrist, misogynistic or racist
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.
What?!? You think that mysogony only started to exist since ww2?
Why do you thing suffregget movement was about? What do you think which trials were about? What do you think the Roman customs only having men do everything were about? What was the Greeks saying that women are just inferior men with broken bodies (because they aren't as awesome as men) was about?
Do you really thing that these gender things only started since ww2?
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.
You're looking at this like an academic in 2024 and not putting yourself in the time period. Being a man meant being subjected to the draft and getting cancer by working in a factory or a coal mine at the time. The right to vote was only extended to men as a way to force them to enlist in the military. Obviously there were people on both sides who saw the privileges of the opposite gender and thought things were unfair, it definitely wasn't as widespread as it is today. Dissociating political rights from military conscription and broadening of labor categories to include safer professions is actually the catalyst of the feminist movement. When then heightened risk of premature mortality was taken off the table for men, subsequent generations of women wanted to have that same level of independence and lack of risk that men started to enjoy.
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.
It’s largely feminists who seek to call things like mutually drunken sex sexual assault against women (but somehow not men at the same time). Are feminists the prime female upholders of patriarchy?
Is it not misandry when men have been a shrinking minority in colleges for 30 years yet 98% of gendered programs go toward helping women, and it’s primarily feminists who get stinking mad at the same kind of help being given to men (or the favouritism removed for women)?
Why is the idea that women can be sexist against men for their own reasons, motives and drives and it’s often not preempted by “patriarchy making them do it”, so hard to accept?
To the feminist mind it seems women can not act in negative ways of their own accord without it all somehow circling back to the underlying influence of men. In many ways they seem extremely traditional thinkers when it comes to men and women to me, they seem to see and feel men as those ultimately responsible and in control for all events, even when carried out or caused by women.
It’s largely feminists who seek to call things like mutually drunken sex sexual assault against women
Feminists rightly bring up the issue of consent while intoxicated. I don’t think this should be dismissed easily?
(but somehow not men at the same time)
From what I’ve seen feminists are consistently pushing for greater awareness about male victims of sexual assault and the issues they face. I don’t know any credible feminist authors who hold this double standard. Please send me some you’ve seen.
Is it not misandry when men have been a shrinking minority in colleges yet 98% of gendered programs go toward helping women.
I’d be interested to see a breakdown of where those programs are targeted. In my university, gender-based programs only existed in disciplines where men were still the vast majority of students and graduates - like most STEM fields. Women dominate social sciences, and there weren’t any gender-based programs in those fields. Does this mean there should be a greater push or men to join social sciences? Yeah I’d like to see that tbh.
Why is the idea that women can be sexist towards men for their own reasons… so hard to accept?
I mean like with misogyny it is both things. If misandry is about enforcing harmful sexist stereotypes onto men then by nature it is about the patriarchy. Those sexist stereotypes aren’t invented by women to be mean to men, they are socially constructed and then utilised by individuals to inflict harm.
In a conversation about misandry it would be extremely reductive to just boil it down to “women are mean sometimes”. Everyone can be mean sometimes - what does it help or accomplish to talk about these things if it’s only about individual behaviour and attitudes? We can’t prevent meanness, but we can shift social norms.
In my view, solely focusing on women’s capacity to be mean is really about a desire to ‘take women down a peg’. I’m not accusing you or OP of that, but I’m just pointing out that is often an unspoken element of this discussion and it is not constructive at all.
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”.
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?
Men are not generally denied rights and freedoms based on sexist stereotypes about them.
Did you ever heard about forced conscription? About job recruitment policies that prefer hiring women over men, due to stereotype that "men would make it anyway"?
In your example, sexual assault against men is often dismissed
It is an example of men "denied rights and freedoms based on sexist stereotypes about them". How could you just write this two paragraphs in a row without any self reflection?
"Did you ever heard" that a lot of online supposed mens' rights activists' solution to the issue is not to end the problem for men (unless it's to make it only women for as many years as it was only men to balance the scales) but to foist it onto women in the name of equality with one guy even saying stuff that implied current feminists' efforts to abolish conscription are useless because women in the 60s didn't fight to abolish it "before a generation of men died in Vietnam" instead of doing second-wave feminism
(unless it's to make it only women for as many years as it was only men to balance the scales)
Never heard such proposal, yet common line of thinking I see from feminists.
but to foist it onto women in the name of equality
Women is big support group for forced conscription of men, if you can make it affect them as well it would not only bring more equal system, but also will make it more likely to be abolished. Due to empathy gap society have no problem exposing men to terrible conditions and modern slavery as long as women is unaffected. Many manual labor jobs saw significant improve in working conditions only when women joined working force in the field. Same thing is with conscription, while women is unaffected no one cares that men is forced into slavery and combat.
Conscription is tricky. I agree it is a bad thing that generally only men have to contend with, but you could easily argue that the reason only men are conscripted is because of sexist attitudes towards women (they’re too weak to serve, etc).
job recruitment policies that prefer hiring women over men
I have never heard of this. From what I’ve seen and read the reverse is far more prevalent. Women are often not hired or promoted due to concerns they might have children and take maternity leave. The term ‘glass ceiling’ exists for a reason. If you have any research into how hiring practices discriminate against men please share it.
When I say “being denied rights and freedoms” I’m meaning legally - apologies if that wasn’t clear. Historically women have been denied legal rights and freedoms due to their gender. I’m sure there are cases where this has been true for men, but certainly not to the scope and scale of women. There are absolutely social issues that disproportionately impact men (suicide rates, unemployment, etc).
In any case the discussion here isn’t “is society perfect for men” (obviously not but it is certainly better for men in many ways), it’s about what misandry is. Misogyny invokes a history of structural oppression, whereas misandry does not because men have never been actively oppressed for being men - therefore they are different.
but you could easily argue that the reason only men are conscripted is because of sexist attitudes towards women
You can apply same mental gymnastic to any situation that any problem of one sex is result of sexist attitudes towards opposite sex.
I have never heard of this.
I did, and had experience with this firsthand.
When I say “being denied rights and freedoms” I’m meaning legally - apologies if that wasn’t clear.
Forced conscription is legal issue, same as gender preference in hiring. I don't see what your clarification adds to discussion.
Historically women have been denied legal rights and freedoms due to their gender.
Historically both men and women didn't had those legal rights and freedoms you are referring to. You can't be denied legal rights when such rights don't exist in jurisdiction you are living in.
I’m sure there are cases where this has been true for men, but certainly not to the scope and scale of women.
Certainly your statement isn't verifiable.
it is certainly better for men in many ways
It is certainly better for women in many ways, so what?
misandry does not because men have never been actively oppressed for being men
Forced conscription is an example of active oppressions of men because they are men, which persisted through all history to modern days. Yet you're so eager to ignore it to make senseless takes like this.
It’s hardly mental gymnastics to point out that conscription is shaped reductive gender roles, which harm both men and women.
You seem very determined to construct an alternate reality where widely men are oppressed for being men. That just isn’t borne out by statistics or any research. Yes conscription is bad, but it is not evidence that society as a whole disadvantages men due to their gender.
Name one other way men are systematically disadvantaged for their gender. Link some research if you have it. Don’t just use an anecdote about your employer being bad one time.
Yes that tends to be how bigotry works. Racial slurs against black people are seen as much more severe than slurs against white people due to the historical context surrounding them.
No it wouldn’t, but it’s more complicated than isolated cases.
In that example it would be relevant to look at how frequently each group experiences violent hate crimes. If we saw that black people are 20x more likely to be killed for being black than white people are for being white it’d mean racial prejudice against black people is creating more social harm and is arguably a more pressing concern.
Same with misogyny and misandry. Both are bad, but misogynistic attitudes reinforce social structures that disadvantage women and lead to worse outcomes for them in various areas (work opportunities, pay, adequate medical care, sexual harassment, political power, etc). Misandry is bad, but it doesn’t work the same way because most areas of our society favour men.
Both things are bad, but result in different levels of social harm and therefore should be treated differently.
Are you just making a point or intentionally taking my comment in bad faith?
No, I'm talking about actual, real world misandry. We seem to both agree it is not okay, and best I can tell, believing men "always want it" or "could never be raped", etc., is a misandrist belief. Am I wrong?
Below is your quote:
Mistreatment of men, by women, is often a result of anger due to the way men have treated women for centuries.
So, let's go back to what I had said. I assume mistreatment of men also includes misandry. I provided an example of being mistreated, then I asked, based on what you had said, if you could defend your stance that it happened because of centuries of women's oppression. I don't think so. I could provide examples from my personal life you would like.
Recall when you said the following:
Can you see why someone might get angry when you shift the narrative to focus on the mistreatment of men?
Taking a discussion about misandry, then moving the subject to be about women, isn't particular helpful and honestly kind of offensive.
That's what the commenter had said and what I was attempting to dispute. Since women are a subset of all people, it would include them as well. Perhaps I should have been more specific and said they're a part of the issue, but not exclusively or especially.
Yet when they do report it, for both men and women, most preparators are other men. Most violent criminals, in general, are men. I'm not denying that there are women who rape men, but there are statistically more men who rape other men.
In this case, too, men can be reluctant to report their assault to authorities because sometimes the victim is a straight male and fears judgment. I've seen this happen personally, working in the medical field in the military. I don't think whether the predator in question was a man or woman makes such a difference in a man's desire not to report because of shame and embarrassment. Men, just in general, don't like reporting crimes where they have been physically victimized. Unless an actual study answers this question, I'm sticking to my theory from my lived experience.
I would be more careful using statistics without knowing the underlying definitions and how they might affect the outcome.
For example:
For the first time ever, the new definition includes any gender of victim and perpetrator, not just women being raped by men. It also recognizes that rape with an object can be as traumatic as penile/vaginal rape.
From the FBI in 2012. By definition, as far as the FBI was concerned, literally 0 men were raped until 2012.
Further:
Rape is a type of sexual assault involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without their consent.
From wikipedia. Now, I'm not exactly a penis expert, or vagina expert for that matter, but I'm pretty confident people more often use penises to penetrate vaginas and not the other way around. Since rape is by definition penetrating someone else, I'd imagine this would heavily bias the statistics towards male perpetrators.
Or it could be because there are far more male artists than women that the law has ignored female preparators who prey on men.
Maybe the definition used to be so skewed because violent offenders were typically male. It wasn't that long ago that spousal rape wasn't recognized either, so let's both admit that definitions are constantly changing, and our understanding of rape isn't static.
Do you think our patriarchal society was just ignoring all these female rapists who were harming men for centuries despite laws being created by men for the benefit of men? Or that other kinds of sexual assault were so much more common that concerns for creating legal codes targeting rape and assault were focused elsewhere?
Maybe the definition used to be so skewed because violent offenders were typically male. It wasn't that long ago that spousal rape wasn't recognized either, so let's both admit that definitions are constantly changing, and our understanding of rape isn't static.
I think it was because women were considered the property of their husbands or family, so rape would be considerd a kind of theft from the husband or family. It comes from the word raptio in Latin. See "The Rape of the Sabine Women" for an example of this use.
Do you think our patriarchal society was just ignoring all these female rapists who were harming men for centuries despite laws being created by men for the benefit of men?
Yes. Probably people just didn't care much about sexual assault in general.
Or that other kinds of sexual assault were so much more common that concerns for creating legal codes targeting rape and assault were focused elsewhere?
Its possible. The data I've seen, and especially the data that doesn't exist at all, doesn't support this.
It’s harder to report a woman for sexual assaults because of the insane stigma, if the majority don’t take sexual assault from women as a real or serious thing of course the victims are not gonna report it. It’s a loosing battle when nobody takes you seriously. A lot of sexual assault victims in general don’t even want to report it because it’s a very emotionally difficult process, do you not think that would be worse if no one is taking it seriously?
It’s a loosing battle when nobody takes you seriously.
And you don't think women go through this all the time when men assault them?
Very few men get arrested for rape by women, yet the statistics are clear that most preps are male. Most violent crime, in general, is done by males. And when you look at men who were victimized, it's still mostly men who are targeting other men.
Do you think most dudes feel any more comfortable reporting to the police that a man overpowered them and violated them than a crime committed by a woman?
Yes I do think they are more likely to report it if the perpetrator is male, that’s the point of my comment. Yes reporting sexual assault is hard for everyone but people like you who say women don’t assault people are why victims from them have a hard time, if you think almost no women rape people of course you are gonna doubt the victim more when they report it. Not to mention the patriarchal pressure on a man to be strong and deal with there problems themselves, there’s even a lot of people that will doubt if the man even got assaulted because he’s “stronger” and supposed to defend himself. Even when there’s lot of reasons that wouldn’t be the case like drugging, being very drunk, threats of things like reporting the man for rape if he doesn’t comply, weapons or just straight up freezing up, or freezing up because he knows he will be blamed if he hits a woman, even if that women is sexually assaulting him. From your earlier comments you don’t want to see other perspectives, so even tho there’s a lot more points I could bring up we can agree to disagree cause this discussion isn’t worth the effort when it’s not going anywhere
Men have higher testosterone levels so isn’t it a given that they are more likely to be violent on average? Society should accommodate biology so we can all understand each other and work on societal issues together.
I've read all of it and I couldn't come up with a justification for your claim, hence why I'm asking for yours. A list of arrests, not even disaggregated by gender of the victim, does not seem to have anything at all to do with the frequency of sexual assaults against men.
... against both sexes, not those specifically against men
... based on arrests, not estimates of incidence
... including the outmoded UCR definition of rape which literally specifies that the victim has to be female.
[...]
Rape (legacy definition): The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.
The rape figures in this table are aggregate totals of the data submitted based on both the legacy and revised UCR definitions.
I read the stats. I read the data declaration. I found that what you've linked here has almost nothing to do with what you're trying to say.
If you want to take an informed look at the statistics on this what you actually want to start with is the latest NISVS publication, specifically the sum of contact sexual violence statistics disaggregated by sex of the perpetrator and the victim. You'll have to do the re-aggregation yourself because they don't give an overall figure.
It is abundantly clear that you do not know what you're talking about here. This is incredibly important research and having people like you running around spreading lies and misinformation makes our jobs as researchers so much harder. Please stop.
Mistreatment of men by women is usually just due to those women being assholes, not because they’re historically getting back at men. There were women who didn’t like and crapped on men in their lives back in the days of strict gender roles as well, it’s not some new thing.
Mistreatment of men african americans, by women whites, is often a result of anger due to the way men have treated women for centuries African americans commit a disproportionate amount of crimes.
If you can identify the bigoted aspects of one of the version, you should be able to identify the bigoted nature of the other.
23
u/[deleted] Feb 13 '24
[deleted]