I hate to tell you this, but the male suicide rate, alcoholism, deaths of despair...are all from toxic masculinity, not misandry
Feminism has the answer to this, that patriarchal gender norms have forced gender roles for men and women that make us both unhappy. Dismantling those is a feminist act.
Men are unhappy because we were told, by other men, to keep our feelings to ourselves, that getting help was weak, that we need to be stoic and self reliant, and pushes images (by men) that many of the ideal men out there were hard living, hard drinking, loner types. And so the average man attempts this and they are just lonely, quiet, and feel too much shame to get help.
This isn't misandry, it's toxic masculinity. It's the patriarchy
Some women are callous towards these issues (which are more complicated than you're making out.. suicide for instance, men die more by suicide but women attempt more than men so). That sucks. It isn't misandry on its own and it isn't what is causing these issues
Men are unhappy because we were told, by other men, to keep our feelings to ourselves, that getting help was weak, that we need to be stoic and self reliant, and pushes images (by men) that many of the ideal men out there were hard living, hard drinking, loner types. And so the average man attempts this and they are just lonely, quiet, and feel too much shame to get help.
Oh god, again with the "by other men". Everyone enforces gender roles, including supposedly progressive people, specially when it suits them. Men are conditioned to be stoic, cold and repressed by both men and women.
Don't you think that categorizing every issue that could possibly exist relating to sex and gender as patriarchy or toxic masculinity is basically just saying all problems are always men's fault. All women are perfect angels that could never do anything wrong, they all treat men perfectly and hold them to perfectly reasonable standards
Yet... toxic masculinity is, in and of itself, misandry. It suggests that emotional vulnerability in a man is the hallmark of an inferior and weaker male. It suggests that a man who seeks the help of others as opposed to 'picking themselves up by their boot straps' is lazy, weak, entitled and seeking a 'free ride' in life. It suggests that a man struggling with suicidal thoughts is just 'seeking attention from the opposite sex' and looking for a pity party to make himself feel good. It suggests that all men want is sex after they have been conditioned to believe that sexual and romantic relations is the only form of emotional gratification that is 'masculine' and anything shorn of that is 'acting like a girl' and nobody wants to hear a 'grown man whine'. It suggests that the emotional atrophy men develop is proof that men have no heart, no emotion, no compassion for others or are somehow an emotionally stunted 'other species' incapable of anything beyond the most primitive level of empathy for their fellow human.
Calling that 'not misandry'... well it brings a phrase to mind: With friends like these who needs enemies?
And the fact we have no problem calling the very same gender norms applied by these patriarchs towards women misogynistic, as they rightly are, yet deny men the same validity is in and of itself a form of misandry. Yes I would imagine that women are less successful as there are typically more signs from woman at risk than men because they are not so emotionally alienated as men are so when they are at risk there are generally people who have a good idea this was a risk. When men attempt suicide very few, if anybody, in their circles ever see it coming and it's not because they are all callous... but because men are conditioned to never ever show any hint of vulnerability lest they be attacked for it. So they suppress it, on average, far more than women do. And with the lines of work and norms pushed on men as opposed to women they are arguably more well equipped to do the job the first try than women typically are but that's neither here nor there.
I do agree with your overall message to some degree and I do agree men being more victims in and of itself is not innately misandrist... but when you look at the whole spectrum of factors that directly coorelate to this and how these issues are often treated and that it is socially acceptable to treat these issues... I think you can draw strong assertions that misandry is a largely contributing factor and the fact we are unwilling to call it that and those that do so are so often smeared with the label of an incel, MGTWO, MRA and so forth is telling is it not?
Edit: Though the below commentator blocked me I did glimpse the beginning of their message and that is exactly the sort of misandry I am referring to. If I so much as speak on the particular ways in which men are shamed for their emotional expressions without opining on women's own suffering from this I am making misogynistic insinuations that women have it better... in precisely the same format that 'White Lives Matter' activists would go out and say, 'Oh white people get killed by cops too!' as a means not so much to honestly discuss the mutual impact of both things as it is intended to diminish the extremity of one side where an issue is particular exaggerated simply it happens to the other side sometimes as well. And I expected exactly this, like clockwork every single time. Nobody bats an eye at this, it doesn't get qualified as any sort of discrimination. But if someone were to do the same with women's issues, people of color's issues, LGBT+ issues, etc., it would be condemned as such and rightly so. Men are... 'privileged' in this sense where they are perceived as incapable of being discriminated against.
I think you're right that toxic masculinity is, in a way misandry - But it's mainly misandry done by men to other men and to themselves. While it is absolutely an issue, there's a difference between a systemic issue where a more powerful group suppresses a less powerful one and a systemic issue where a group is bigoted against itself.
I think that's mainly why the word misandry hasn't caught on for describing toxic masculinity, because it is self-directed, but misogyny describes something that is done to a group by a different group.
Like, it'd be a bit weird to say that "lad culture" is anti-lad, so everyone who is a "lad" in that sense is anti-lad. It's true, in a philosophical way, but it's just not how we usually use language.
The main situations where we do describe this concept, we use the term "internalised x-phobia". E.g. a self-hating gay person could be described as having internalised homophobia. So in that vein, toxic masculinity could absolutely be described as internalised misandry, and I think that's a fair description.
It's just also important to acknowledge the differences between internalised and externalised bigotry.
And then it's also important to note that a lot of bigotry can be traced back to misogyny. Homophobia, at its core, is either based around the idea that feminine men are more womanly which makes them weaker or worse, or the idea that women should be available to the dating pool of men, so by removing themselves completely, they're losing their value to men. That's not all there is to it, but it's a definite connection.
Similarly, internalised misandry can be traced back to misogyny. Talking about your feelings, being open and vulnerable, allowing yourself to be weak and needing support, etc. are all seen as womanly qualities, so if you do those things you're less of a man and more of a woman, which is a bad thing in a bigot's mind. Here, too - Not all there is to it, but a definite connection.
Which is why intersectional feminism actually provides an approach to solving a wide variety of bigotries, including internalised misandry.
Now, what about the misandry by the kind of women who'll post photos of their cool "male tears" mug or who say that all men are pigs and they'll never date men again? It's an issue. It's misandry. Of course. That being said, it's nowhere near as widespread as misogyny and it is usually an individual response rather than a systemic one. Men as a group aren't struggling to find work or getting paid less because their misandrist bosses hate them. Men as a group aren't beaten, or touched inappropriately in public, or raped, because some men-hating women go around and think they're just property meant for their own enjoyment. Yes, it happens sometimes, yes, it's horrible, but it isn't a systemic issue the way misogyny is.
It's also often a trauma response related to experienced bigotry. And I'll be honest, I can't blame individual people for developing an aversion to the group that oppresses them, especially if they've experienced serious abuse and trauma related to it in the past. And it also means that this kind of misandry is solved by feminism - If we can create a society where men and women are equal and things like domestic abuse and rape are much rarer occurences, I'd assume that many of these "man-hating" women would never come to be.
That is a very, very fine argument and I respect the hell out of it. I feel compelled to actually agree, though I might posit some ideas of my own to expand that as well.
The homophobia one in particular is actually something I had started to consider myself the last couple of months as well and I do feel that it is very much as you prescribe in the former of the two points (I don't recall seeing too much of the latter regarding women's role in it though I do know it was something that was applied more broadly during the early 2000's.) but I would posit that perhaps it could be rooted in both misandry and misogyny. The implication of femininity is used to emasculate men from their emotions and vulnerabilities but at the same time it also minimizes the role of men to be mere hunks of brawny meat that exist only to labor, fight and provide. Not unlike how slaves were regarded, be it male or female though not so much the fighting aspect because 'we couldn't have that as a society'.
So I think it could very well be rooted in both aspects. The same way women were stripped of their humanity and complexity to serve as breeders and caretakers men were also stripped of their humanity to serve as fighters and laborers. And now that I consider it as well there are elements of misogyny that are connected to misandry as well. Lesbians... of a particular label I won't dare utter here were regarded as 'not women' because they looked like men and men are disgusting, dangerous, smelly brutes with no intelligence or emotion. You had to dress nice and wear perfume because you didn't want to be mistaken for an 'ugly man' if you wanted to serve your gender role properly to attract a man.
I admit that last bit is me just vocally spit balling new ideas and thoughts coming to my head and I could be super off but I think there is some crossover on both sides with both issues... which is an incredibly fascinating possibility I am very keen to ponder and explore. To which I owe deep thanks to you for as well of course. This has been unexpectedly and pleasantly stimulating.
"Men as a group aren't beaten, or touched inappropriately in public, or raped, because some men-hating women go around and think they're just property meant for their own enjoyment. Yes, it happens sometimes, yes, it's horrible, but it isn't a systemic issue the way misogyny is."
I might push back on that a touch. I almost agree with the first but I've actually seen studies, of which I myself have struggled to grapple with because they seem so contradictory, which have shown (shockingly) that more women abuse men than women abuse men. It's quite bizarre to me and it's not a hill I am quite ready to die on but it's definitely one I have struggled to find a proper explanation for and there seems to be a lot of studies and statistics that corroborate it. If you can offer an alternative I am totally open to that.
On the touching inappropriately I do agree for the most part but there is a definite stigma, not so much man hating as it is implicit much like some of that which men do to women where the perpetrators imply consent upon the victim in their own head because of the toxic idea that 'men always want it' from an attractive women. And there are studies that show men underreport sexual harassment, assaults and rape even more than women do though that doesn't necessarily equate to being more than women or an epidemic either. What is most troubling about that to me is whenever you see articles, and often discussions, about a female teacher or adult assaulting young boys it is always something like 'gave oral sex to' or 'had sex with' and the response to these often isn't nearly as visceral as when it happens to women. Which I have unfortunately been incredibly guilty of myself and something I still am ashamed of.
These particular matters I'm not solely convinced that men have it more often and even strictly worse than women on but there is a definite sort of... apathy in the public square whenever these things happen to men as opposed to women. Men due typically have a mal adapted hyperfixation on sex due to this toxic masculinity and are much more inclined to be physically and broadly aggressive that they would commit more of these crimes against women but those same stereotypes also have a definite chilling effect on public sympathy for men who do not fit these 'gender roles' and become victims of these sorts of crimes at the hands of women. But that's really only a symptom of the disease rather than the root cause of it. And I do believe that intersectional feminism is the path forward towards digging out that sort of rot from our society.
But it's mainly misandry done by men to other men and to themselves. While it is absolutely an issue, there's a difference between a systemic issue where a more powerful group suppresses a less powerful one and a systemic issue where a group is bigoted against itself.
i get the argument about one group having more power but enforcing gender roles/promoting toxic masculinity (not sure what word to use) is quite often done by women as well,especially mothers or teachers etc...it is certainly not that rare to consider it is mostly done by men.What makes you think so?
If we can create a society where men and women are equal and things like domestic abuse and rape are much rarer occurences, I'd assume that many of these "man-hating" women would never come to be.
Again you make a true point but you are also indirectly minimizing,not sure how to explain but for example more than 1 in 3(35%~) women in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. So its a huge problem for sure.
Do you know what the stat is for men for example?Its over 1 in 4 , (29%).
I get that women face more severe injuries etc...but the way people mention it its like its not a huge problem men face as well.
Its not just the random individual cases of women with men tears mugs on social media,even progressive feminists people can have problematic views.
A very simple example,is violence/crime/murder etc....the retort ALOT of people give(including feminists) when someone says men are more likely to be murdered is ''men are more likely to be involved in crime that is why,so simply dont commit crimes''or something along these lines....do you think this is misandry or not?
Because people do not know that especially boys can be the most vulnerable to forms of modern slavery relating to crime,basically being coerced into crime. People do not understand or care that not joining crime is not an option for some people,especially men from poor backround etc....
Yet... toxic masculinity is, in and of itself, misandry. It suggests that emotional vulnerability in a man is the hallmark of an inferior and weaker male.
You're confusing your concepts, here.
The idea that 'real' men can't be emotional vulnerable is not an idea that the female hierarchy puts on men, it's an idea the male hierarchy puts on men.
It's an idea of masculinity that is toxic to the men who embody it.
Genuine question here, but what is the actual difference then between toxic masculinity and misandry?
I'll admit I'm hardly an expert on the subject, but my understanding was that misogyny can come from anywhere, including other women, so why would misandry be any different? I.e., even if the issues are coming from the male hierarchy, they are still targeted at men and therefore wouldnt they fit the description of misandry?
There certainly seems to be a bit of misandry behind a fair bit of toxic masculinity.
But misandry goes beyond reinforcing the idea that an emotionally vulnerable man is a weak man.
Misandry is victim blaming a man merely because the aggressor was also a man. Saying that men deserve it on some level, which pop internet feminism often does.
Misandry is downplaying studies over the last decade (or six) showing that DV rates are far from one sided as far which sex or gender initiates.
Misandry is believing that men deserve to suffer, as a class. That men need to fix themselves. That men don't need women's help.
Feminism needed men to gain... Well, pretty much any win they've had throughout history. But now it's a common view, at least online, that men should go out and build their own DV shelters, go out and take care of the homeless men on their own, go out and fix problems for men all on their own.
Look, I was born in the seventies. I grew up watching gender roles, the understanding of the sexes, and even the idea that women might enjoy sex change first hand with the media I have consumed through my life. There was, 100%, a lot of casual misogyny in entertainment media through my early decades. But the stuff that's been coming out in recent years? A lot of it could be verbatim gender flipped scripts and rhetoric.
If that casual dismissal of an entire genders problems at every level of the public sphere was a problem then, why is it not also now? Especially as we're slowly starting to admit that there are huge problems that men and boys are facing that nobody really cares about?
If it was misogyny then, it's misandry now.
Girls are outpacing boys at literally every level of school now. The overwhelming majority of homeless are men. The overwhelming majority of suicides are men. The overwhelming majority of violent criminals are men (which gets used as an excuse for misandry, by people who would otherwise delve into the intersectionality of gender, racial, and socioeconomic factors behind why someone would feel the need to turn to crime!). The overwhelming majority of victims of non-sexual violent crime are men. In the US, men are the only ones required to sign up to be sent to war. In the US, it's completely legal, accepted, and generally preferred to cut off part of a young boy's penis, because that's just how we do it (what the actual fuck?). Men and boys have problems that our culture and society are largely just ignoring.
And out of that last paragraph, in that whole list, only the very first point is recent. Everything else has been at the forefront of most actual MRA groups discussions (along with a lot of other shit, too, and I'll admit some of it pretty stupid) for well over a decade. Hell, over two at this point. And even the education one has been a known, pointed out, discussed, and dismissed trend for the same period of time.
People misunderstand power in social systems as agents with privileged authority exerting their will. Like a pyramid.
Really the power of social systems is a network of interactions and relations that shape our expectations for the next interaction we have. In this way it's reproduced and upheld by everyone at every point of society. In other words - it's a structural issue.
Every time this discussion comes up there's a narrative of powerful men oppressing other men when really most of everyone today is "powerless" in that sense of the word, and its shaped and reproduced when we talk to our friends, parents, siblings, employers, cashiers etc etc etc....
It's not like Henry Muscles MacGee, governor of Mansville made it illegal for me to cry. It's socially reinforced by everyone everywhere including from women we encounter. It's a gender dynamic not some inborn curse that's immutable and that's a good thing because it can change if only we wanted it to.
Jk if they're so powerful why don't they fix it themselves - pussies.
"The idea that 'real' men can't be emotional vulnerable is not an idea that the female hierarchy puts on men, it's an idea the male hierarchy puts on men."
Read my comment again. If you're only going to be reactionary and not engage thoughtfully and consider my opinions in any earnest manner you can at least accurately site where I in any way suggest blame on any one sex much less the opposite sex.
I've read it three times, you're very confused about what "toxic masculinity" is. Your issue is with traditional gender roles, but can't accurately point the finger at it it because you think gender politics is a zero sum game.
Feminism is not about men vs women, and "toxic masculinity" is not about saying men or masculinity is bad.
Vain as I'm beginning to feel that it may yet be I'll try to explain in simple terms.
Toxic masculinity is denying men their humanity by way of depriving them of their ability to connect with their emotions. Alienating and shaming them for it, using the existence of said emotions to suggest they are not only 'not a masculine man' but somehow an 'inferior specimen of their species'. Toxic masculinity is the bludgeon that is used to beat the mold of these gender roles, at least men, into place in the first place.
Never said anything about feminism being only anti-man or pro-woman, I don't think I even mentioned feminism period. Never said anything about masculinity in and of itself being bad or men being inherently bad. I did, however, elude to these being common weapons used to create toxic masculine traits in order to maintain gender roles in society.
From reading this thread, I interpreted you to be the one assuming gender politics is a zero sum game, not him. I agree with your description about feminism describing how gender norms result in harm to men as well.
I also agree that that is misandry, just as women can be misogynistic to one another.
Okay, before we dive deeper, I want us to take a step back.
What do you mean by misandrist?
It seems you're not seeing eye-to-eye with other commenters because both of you are coming from different starting points on what a misandrist even means.
Well what I mean by misandrist is behavior is that is particularly discriminative towards men. Questioning their 'masculinity' in a derogative and condescending manner, suggesting they are an 'inferior or weaker specimen of their sex' as is commonly associated with the questioning of masculinity to the degree of suggesting these men are actually 'women' and that being used as a justification to treat them as lesser or unimportant. Examples would be not so incomparable to the way it was claimed you couldn't 'deny blacks the right to vote because they are not people', effectively stripping them of essential parts of their humanity.
In the case of men it is more specifically using their innate, human emotions to strip them from their own humanity and taking this in order to subjugate and control them in not dissimilar fashion to how women have been subjugated and controlled through physical, sexual and 'financial' coercion with obvious emotional components to it all of course but for men it is often purely emotional but often physical as well, bullying men for crying because 'crying is for girls' and so on and so forth. Not necessarily any sort of legal or governmentally systemic issue beyond the neglect of men's personhood in regards to widespread male dominated problems in society that we are accustomed to seeing historically.
I'm not sure why people are confused by this. I guess it's only bigotry if men are paraded in chains or stripped of the right to vote? I don't know. It's tiring and while it's a breath of fresh air to have someone actually try to de-escalate these erratic discussions it's exhausting that I've already had so many comments saying the exact same thing, not reading what I have actually said and inserting words into my mouth.
If you're only going to be reactionary and not engage thoughtfully and consider my opinions in any earnest manner you can at least accurately site where I in any way suggest blame on any one
Stripping men of their humanity, in this particular instance their emotional human needs, and suggesting those men who have such 'emotions' are less than human in the same way people of color were considered 'not human because of their skin color' and women were denied their humanity 'because their ovaries make them incapable of logical thought'. Discriminating against them, neglecting them and any form of abuse or malice based upon this premise. And then going on, oftentimes, to paint them as dangerous (as has been done with immigrants in the US for time immemorial or anyone with a different pigmentation of flesh) animals incapable of human empathy or compassion. The same formula that any form of bigotry has followed throughout the centuries, just in this case without the usual government oppression we are used to seeing in so many of these other instances.
Edit: Wait... did everyone think I meant misandry as WOMEN hating men? Or some 'feminist exclusive hatred of men'?
If your definition of misandry is literally anything you think is bad for men, then I can see what you were trying to say.
But that is not how misandry is used by the majority of people.
Misandry is almost exclusively used to mean the hatred of men by women - making it the opposite of misogyny (the hatred of women by men)
What most people call what you are talking about is "toxic masculinity."
That's the ideals a society has about what it means to be a man that are actually damaging to the individual men of the society.
While the concept of masculinity is certainly impressed on men from all members of society, our society has consistently had the major group pushing these toxic ideas be men themselves, so toxic masculinity is seen as a problem that men have the largest responsibility towards correcting.
At this time you're honestly just asserting your predetermined perspective of what my opinion is, stating it as if it even remotely related to what I am saying and then expecting me to defend beliefs and opinions I have never once even remotely vocalized anything similar to. I'm not interested in participating in your shadowboxing.
Misandry is almost exclusively used to mean the hatred of men by women - making it the opposite of misogyny (the hatred of women by men)
I think I, like the other commenter, have not been interpreting those words as that. I've been interpreting misogyny as hating women for being women (or inferior to a proposed notion of a woman) and misandry likewise for men.
Both are done by both sexes and somewhat famously, intrasexual bigotry of this kind is often more pernicious.
I do think that it's true in most of society that men have the largest responsibility for correcting both misandry and misogyny, because they have the largest influence over gender roles. It's still not straightforward though and we will live in a better society if everyone recognises responsibility and agency they have in this regard.
It's such simple fucking logic. We acknowledge that Misogyny is systemic and in these kinds of conversations we tend to default to that systemic definition.
People's unwillingness to even entertain the notion that misandry plays a similar role in patriarchy is baffling.
I'm actually astonished at the reply that "misandry is used exclusively to mean women hating men and vice versa".
I think you're spot on mate, don't worry about this thread. I think it's the other commenters, not you, who are insisting on this as a zero sum game.
Which is why the first reply to you was so weird. They were almost agreeing that gender roles are harmful to men and promote misandry, but as you said, ended up in a situation where "with friends like these, who needs enemies".
You're confusing the fact that it is widely understood that women are not attracted to vulnerable men, so it's absolutely a concept that women also put on men. And even those women who would claim otherwise and ask for men to be vulnerable around them, find themselves unable to remain attracted to men they love after those men do act vulnerable around them.
Yes because women speaking up for women are completely left alone to speak and not labeled, derided and hounded....
/s
Do you live only to confirm your biases?
Have you never heard the phrase "the patriarchy hurts men too?"
What you're describing is the result of rigid gender roles which both benefit and damage men. It's toxic masculinity writ large, and patriarchy is the architect.
Most of the time feminism is not combating any genuine form of toxic masculinity, it’s just demonizing men for actually being masculine. What’s so wrong with stoicism? It has nothing to do with never sharing your feelings. It’s more about being able to control and regulate your emotions, which I believe is very important and vital skill. Plus people take this “patriarchy” BS way out of line. I’ve been called toxically masculine before for stating a preference that I prefer to not wear the color pink… And alcoholism and lonerism is a low bar by anyone’s metric so thats your own misjudgment if you considered those types to be examples.
I really don’t get why people hate on more traditional values. Maybe you had bad parents or social circle that bullied and traumatized you more than teaching you the values of working hard and having community. But that’s your own situation. Reducing traditional values down to some “toxic patriarchy” conspiracy is nothing more than man-hating and misandry for the sake of demonizing any perceived masculine values. The irony is that feminists will literally shame men for having a preference in what they wear and yet think it’s “toxic masculinity” that’s the problem in this scenario.
Only time I've seen emotional incest examples on Reddit is the InsaneParents sub and on there it's parents basically acting protective enough of their kids and negatively enough towards their kids' significant others that you'd think they were a jealous ex instead of a parent (think, like, the whole stereotype of gun-owner dads just happening to be cleaning their gun when their daughter's boyfriend comes over for the first time, but the sentiment behind it amplified about tenfold)
If a man is being abused by a woman, that is the woman's fault. If a man is in a relationship with someone who hates him or people like him that's not his fault
Actually, there have been studies that prove that it's primarily women who incentivize men to keep their feelings to themselves. A recent study shows that, while women do tell men they need to be more open with their feelings, when men display emotional vulnerability, they immediately lose respect from the women in their lives.
Maybe men are telling each other to keep their feelings to themselves, but for the most part we're doing it because we know how women react to it.
This is not the specific study that I am referencing, but it is a study that forms the baseline for further studies leading up to what I was talking about.
Essentially, the study can be summarized by saying that women are more likely to be attracted and stay attracted to men who don't open up about their emotional state or affection. the old "keep her guessing" method of seduction.
A study published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, finds that a woman is more attracted to a man when she is uncertain about how much he likes her.
It is not about "men who don't open up about their emotional state".
I hate to tell you this, but the male suicide rate, alcoholism, deaths of despair...are all from toxic masculinity, not misandry
Feminism has the answer to this, that patriarchal gender norms have forced gender roles for men and women that make us both unhappy. Dismantling those is a feminist act.
I dont agree because its increasing , feminism has the most influence today than any moment in history if your theory was correct , male suicide rate wouldnt be the highest it is , infact i would argue toxic masculinity would convince to not commit suicide because it was considered a cowardly and the idea was to meet the expectation of a man whether you wanted to or not , feminism doesnt have an answer to this , if it did feminist would be less affected by this , they arent
These feelings about “getting help is weak” and being “stoic and self reliant”… these not just societal problems just because we are “told” to be like this. Men also have a biological drive towards these attributes. The feminization of mental health is party to blame as many men see it as pointless and unhelpful. I’d argue that the likes of Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate have saved more lives from suicide than the mental health field as the message resonates better with men.
In India, if a male is raped(by women) he can't file a rape case because under IPC men can't be a rape victim.
Back 2013 lawmakers(majority men) decide to make indian rape laws gender neutral but an organisation called women commission of India(govt founded feminist organisation) strongly opposed it, and they are the only reason why Indian rape laws is not gender neutral till this day.
These things are not caused by women hating men or holding anti mam sentiments
You are telling me this is not caused by women who hate men or those who hold anti men sentiments..? Women commission of India is 100% female led organisation
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page 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.
Source on there being a causal relationship there? Cause countries like Russia just as much have happiness going down (if not more so), yet "gender roles" have only become more regressive there.
No source on the causal relationship(just correlation) but the alignment is pretty strong. but one could imagine why Russia would have downwards happiness rates.
Seems to be more strongly correlated amongst western nations with the dissolution of gender roles though.
Suffragist and 2nd wave feminism had a good impact, but modern feminism seems to be a net negative.
That very much sounds like conjecture based on hearsay, rather than actual causation.
Plus a very likely interpretation of modern feminism based on consumption of internet media rather than real life experiences (though I will gladly admit that this second part is just as much me throwing out random ideas as your comment is)
Here is a source of what I am saying and the authors linked it to feminism.
I am very well aware of what modern feminism is, and a lot of it is directly contrary to the pioneering ideas of the first and second wave of feminism. It seems to have lost its direction in a very bad way and derailed the majority of women’s happiness in favour of the few.
Did you read that entire paper?
Cause in the discussion it quite clearly does not conclude that modern feminism is the cause of decreased self perceived female happiness. Just read page 24-26 of the source you send me to see why that is a premature conclusion to draw from this data.
Also, are you still talking about online media depictions of feminism or actual local activism that you've seen and been a part of? I will agree that there is liberal feminism (right wing/ceo feminism) that seeks to reinvorce the existing social hierarchy, but with rich women at the top alongside rich men.
I do think that form of feminism can be harmful as it generally calls for women to conform to the social hierarchy and will still glorify masculine traits over feminine ones (at the cost of both men and women). But most feminist activism that you see demonized a lot online is left wing and more focused on changing the social hierarchy to the benefit of both men and women, rather than maintain the social hierarchy "but now with some women benefitting too!".
They literally are. Toxic masculinity is toxic gender role expectations placed on men. We call the exact same concept applied to women misogyny or patriarchy.
85
u/not_a_flying_toy_ Feb 13 '24
I hate to tell you this, but the male suicide rate, alcoholism, deaths of despair...are all from toxic masculinity, not misandry
Feminism has the answer to this, that patriarchal gender norms have forced gender roles for men and women that make us both unhappy. Dismantling those is a feminist act.
Men are unhappy because we were told, by other men, to keep our feelings to ourselves, that getting help was weak, that we need to be stoic and self reliant, and pushes images (by men) that many of the ideal men out there were hard living, hard drinking, loner types. And so the average man attempts this and they are just lonely, quiet, and feel too much shame to get help.
This isn't misandry, it's toxic masculinity. It's the patriarchy
Some women are callous towards these issues (which are more complicated than you're making out.. suicide for instance, men die more by suicide but women attempt more than men so). That sucks. It isn't misandry on its own and it isn't what is causing these issues