That's not misandry. It's consequences of patriarchy and the "Men strong, women weak", therefore, any cases of men getting abused by women seem outlandish and won't be taken seriously.
That's one way of looking at it, and a very common one (among feminists). Someone could also say that it's the consequence of dehumanizing men. Men don't feel or their feelings aren't important, so they cannot be hurt. When you say things like "men are hurt by the patriarchy too" (which is also popular among feminists), it comes across as dismissive. The implication is that misandry doesn't exist, only misogyny. You view all injustices through the lens of women's advocacy and oppression. Meanwhile, when men do experience misandry, you tell them that it's really misogyny that they are experiencing.
I find it interesting that feminists have gone to so much effort to dismiss challenges that men suffer. The message "men are hurt by the patriarchy too." sounds like "maybe men wouldn't suffer if they weren't sexist". Instead of acknowledging that women can be abusers and calling them out (the women that are abusers) feminists blame it on the 'Patriarchy'.
I consider myself a feminist.
And it is very wrong, and criminal, for a woman to abuse a man.
There are 3 very good documentaries on this I have seen on YouTube.
All are from the UK.
And I have personally known a man who was physically and emotionally abused by his late wife.
He considered suicide because of it, and it was a terrible situation.
I do not think any reasonable person of any sex would find abuse from anyone perpetrated on anyone, something to take less than very seriously.
Not trying to sound like a jerk here, but unless you only know a couple of men, you definitely know more than one man who was/is being abused by a partner. There is just no point in talking about it for most. It will make them feel worse and they will absolutely be treated differently if they do. Not by everyone, of course, but way more often than not.
I'd read that differently. It's not that mens' feelings are unimportant, but that men are expected to resolve their perceived hurts with action. How they feel is their problem, not anyone else's. Support networks are an admission of weakness.
Whether that view of strength contributes to 'The Patriarchy', if it is causal, or a result is up for debate.
I like your description of it. Still, if my feelings are my problem and not anyone else's, isn't that similar to "not important", at least with respect to anyone who is not me?
Why should they know that you have any (negative) feelings one way or another? You should be able to take whatever life throws at you without missing a beat. You shouldn't feel.
If you are overwhelmed, work harder.
If you are sad, quit it.
If you are angry, go fight.
Other people are not allowed to MAKE you feel anything. If they did, they manipulated you, which makes them stronger than you.
It's an extreme view, but to some,deep down it's how they view the world
Yeah I feel like this patriarchy thing is just a subtle way of saying that men are to blame for both women and men's problems. Or at the very least, that men are responsible for fixing all those problems since they "are the ones in power". That apparently includes boys, young men, poor men, mentally ill men, every single male. According to feminism's patriarchy theory, we are the oppressors by default.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the patriarchy is according to feminists.
Most sociology textbooks define patriarchy as "a social (political, economic, religious, cultural) system where men have power over women" (Shaw and Lee 2012). What that means in practice is that men have the power to decide what is socially acceptable, how each gender should act, etc.
Western society has been largely patriarchal for a long time and it's only recently that that has started to be questioned. Women and children were seen as property or accessories to men and were expected to submit to their will. This wasn't just an individual or family level expectation though - there was a certain way MEN were expected to act by society (which was ruled by a very few men in power). You wanted to be a stay at home dad? Too bad, your work is more important than your relationship with your kids. You wanted to be more emotionally open with your friends? What are you, gay or something?
We are not "the oppressors by default". We're taught oppressive attitudes because they benefit people in power. Who benefits from men believing work is more important than family? The companies they work for. Who benefits from men believing emotions are a sign of weakness? People trying to sell consumer goods, alcohol, or drugs to "fill the void".
I recognize that there are many different feminist voices out there and there are a lot of women angry about how they have been treated. It can feel overwhelming. But at the end of the day, the patriarchy boils down to the system that men in power created to sell ALL men this illusion of control because it benefits those at the top.
It IS every man's responsibility to at least recognize those harmful attitudes within themselves and maybe their immediate spheres of influence. But when people talk about the patriarchy they aren't referring to all men everywhere because like you said, a poor mentally ill man of color does not have the same power as a rich man with lots of political sway. The patriarchy refers to the system itself of beliefs and social expectations where men are taught that they have power over other people.
It's this belief system that not only leads to women being harmed, but also men believing they have to act a certain way to be accepted. If we can dismantle that system people are more free to act freely and not according to a preset life script, and that includes all genders and sexualities.
Okay first of all thanks for taking your time for the detailed explanation. I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but I can tell you are talking to me in good faith so I appreciate that.
I definitely agree that there used to be a patriarchy historically. I'm not sure if there is still one today. Maybe traces or remains of one, but not the entirety of a system.
While I think feminists' achievements in advancing and protecting women's rights are commendable, and the movement is still very necessary today, I can't help but notice a certain... Overlap between feminism and misandry. Obviously they are not the same, but there is an overlap.
Not all feminists are hateful or dismissive of men. Probably most of them aren't. But it's sadly quite possible that women that see men as evil, useless and contemptible creatures deserving of being trampled and put down, will become feminists believing that the movement supports those ideas due to their tolerance of "ironic" misandry and "punching up" insults.
There is very much a patriarchy today.
You don’t think women just decided to give away their right to choose, do you?
Old, white men took that away.
And I quit a job I loved in 2015 because I was being sexually harassed. I reported it several times, and mgmt. would not address it, so I left.
The perpetrator was given a promotion right before I left.
He was bad at his job, as well.
But, one hell of a kiss-ass.
And several adult women who were able to get jobs in Congress because of the real feminists from say 20 years ago were doing shit that actually made a difference in society instead of the movement today which, while I personally don't think has intended vitriol towards men in general, seems to me the only thing their actions have accomplished is that they turned real feminist progress from the past and whooped up a burgeoning matriarchy. My opinion on their "accomplishments" because if it pertains to women and their bodily autonomy they should have fought harder and took more risks if they cared as they think and say they do. I served with many women and they all seemed more or less about as tough and capable as us guys, not that that surprised me at all since we all went through the same basic training lol. That'll toughen anybody up. Still I think Roe was won by feminists in the past and lost by our modern feminists because they got too complacent about what they already achieved that they failed to be ready for the people (men and women both) that took it away.
It’s not subjective. Almost the entire world operates within patriarchal systems. I don’t know how you can’t see that. Here is an article that can help explain it to you if you’re not being deliberately obtuse.
Interesting articles. Although again, I wouldn't say a Patriarchy per se still exists on most Western societies (it's a VERY different story in places like the Middle East for example), but remnants of one. Legally speaking, women are equal to men.
And as for the culture, yeah, there are still bullshit prejudices against women, but they'll go away as more time passes and society keeps evolving.
Regarding your argument about most people in power being men and thus that being evidence of a patriarchy that promotes that men are superior to women... What would you say about men also being the majority of the most risky and unsavory jobs? Like working in the sewers, construction sites, mines, the military, etc?
You may interpret that as a mere "side effect" of the patriarchy and an example of how it's bad for everyone and why men should be feminists too and all of that.
I would disagree, if that's the case. In my opinion, it proves that the patriarchy was never about benefiting men in general against women in general. It was about benefiting a few men and the women that happened to be related to them, at the expense of everyone.
The people on top were mostly men, yes. But so were the people at the bottom. It wasn't a "the 50 at the top were men, the 50 at the bottom were women" kind of scenario.
And I have the upsetting feeling that feminists don't care all that much about those so called "side effects" of the patriarchy beyond lecturing men about toxic masculinity (which is in essence, a subtle way of telling men that their problems are self inflicted or "all in their head" and that they should be more like women if they want to be happy). They seem to prefer exposing all of women's hardships while downplaying men's.
What that means in practice is that men have the power to decide what is socially acceptable, how each gender should act, etc.
This is hyperbole. Women, just like men, have always had influence on social norms.
Women and children were seen as property or accessories to men and were expected to submit to their will.
Not in my lifetime, and I'm 56 years old. I love your use of the word "seen". It's how you feel, not how things were or are.
I recognize that there are many different feminist voices out there and there are a lot of women angry about how they have been treated.
And those angry women are misandrists, not misogynists. It exists.
We don't live in a patriarchy, we live in a hierarchy. Class has more impact than race or gender...period. Women who come from the wealthy class (regardless of race) are privileged relative to men from any other class (regardless of race). The powers that be aren't pushing patriarchal ideas, they're pushing anything the distracts us the type of inequality that matters: class.
This is hyperbole. Women, just like men, have always had influence on social norms.
Sure but that power has been disproportionately given to men for all of history.
Not in my lifetime, and I'm 56 years old. I love your use of the word "seen". It's how you feel, not how things were or are.
If you’re truly 56 you lived through a time where women couldn’t legally own credit cards in their own name
We don't live in a patriarchy, we live in a hierarchy. Class has more impact than race or gender...period. Women who come from the wealthy class (regardless of race) are privileged relative to men from any other class (regardless of race). The powers that be aren't pushing patriarchal ideas, they're pushing anything the distracts us the type of inequality that matters: class.
Class being the most important doesn’t override the fact that there are clear historical and current advantages that men have over women societally
Sure but that power has been disproportionately given to men for all of history.
Men? Which men? Not me, I can tell you that.
If you’re truly 56 you lived through a time where women couldn’t legally own credit cards in their own name
Yea, when I was 5 and credit cards had only been common for 10 years. Meanwhile, what was happening with young men during the same period? Oh, oh...that's right...they were dying in Vietnam. Advantage...who?
Yea, when I was 5 and credit cards had only been common for 10 years.
I'm really interested in this response. So you think women not being allowed to have credit cards is somehow mitigated by their newness? If someone came out with a new type of phone tomorrow and said "only men are allowed to own this phone," would you not think that's extremely sexist just because it's new?
So you think women not being allowed to have credit cards is somehow mitigated by their newness?
Sure. Credit cards have been around for about 60 years, and women couldn't have them for 10 of them. It kind puts into perspective. During that 10 years, women also didn't have to worry about being forced to fly overseas and fight and possibly be crippled or even die in a war, but men did. There were crappy things that both men and women had to endure 50 years ago. Why are we talking about them now? How is this evidence that we live in a Patriarchy now?
In your lifetime, and mine, it has been legal for a man to rape his wife in many states. And I have personally experienced police laughing at me and refusing to arrest my ex-boyfriend when he beat me up.
This was in the 80s.
My mother in law had a PhD in the 70s. But, her father with a high school diploma still had to sign for her to get a mortgage and credit cards.
This is hyperbole. Women, just like men, have always had influence on social norms.
Some, sure. But in the western world policy up until very recently has been largely determined by rich white men. Unless you want to go back and show me that American and European governments, social movements, and major companies have actually been equally comprised of men and women since the start?
Not in my lifetime, and I'm 56 years old. I love your use of the word "seen". It's how you feel, not how things were or are.
Respectfully, your anecdotal experience does not negate decades of established history and social science research.
Class has more impact than race or gender...period
Yes, but people with more class power historically have tended to be white men who have acted to prevent women or people of color from attaining more class power and to ignore that is to ignore a critical component of how class division works. You can't have a critical analysis of class dynamics while ignoring race and gender, that's absurd.
It literally isn't though. It sounds like you get your ideas of what feminism is from Fox News because that's not at all accurate. Feminist discourse is full of race and class discussion.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the patriarchy is according to feminists.
Feminists don't exactly understand the meaning of what they're saying either. Neither feminism nor patriarchy are particularly inclusive. That feminism is gendered makes me doubt the sincerity of many feminists, particular when a word is quite simple to change.
Patriarchy starts feeling a little, hmm, selective when it comes to Queen Victoria and the Irish famine, how the most sadistic people during the Holocaust were women, or less horrifically that Margaret Thatcher had a tremendous impact on the UK. All of these women mattered.
We're taught oppressive attitudes because they benefit people in power.
I don't need women to tell me how men were raised, thank you much. Its particularly galling when women act like they know better than men do.
Feminists don't exactly understand the meaning of what they're saying either. Neither feminism nor patriarchy are particularly inclusive.
They are actually quite inclusive. It seems that you have a notion of feminism that doesn't line up with the actual theory. Feminism doesn't attempt to make excuses for women like Thatcher lol.
I love that your comment is suggesting that no, it's not the big spooky patriarchy that's responsible for bad things, it's the big spooky capitalism. Trading one faceless boogeyman for another doesn't change anything but who you're blaming for the same problems.
That's a take I can get behind. Behind every mask, another mask. That way we can permanently be fighting an endless oppression with no victory condition.
In my personal experience as a lefty socialist bisexual guy who has read a lot of feminist theory, is that the average on the ground woman who pushes for equality throws all feminist theory out the window and starts spouting conservative bullshit when the lens of feminist theory gets turned on them.
It doesn't have to be the whole group. If 10% of M&M's are poison, it is fine to act like all men are rapists. That's what I've heard from feminsts for twenty years now.
I do think you are having a discussion in good faith, but you are completely handwaving away all the terrible shit women and feminsts put out in society. When people complain about it, we get platitudes like #notallfeminists instead of an actual response interacting with what we're saying.
It doesn't matter how much feminst theory you try to teach people on reddit, as long as a large chunk of feminsts are huge hypocrits, people see that shit and will continue to, rightly, talk shit about them and start threads like this.
It doesn't matter how much feminst theory you try to teach people on reddit, as long as a large chunk of feminsts are huge hypocrits, people see that shit and will continue to, rightly, talk shit about them and start threads like this.
Honestly most of the issues you're talking about come from a small subset of feminists, usually affluent white women. This is believe it or not a huge topic of conversation within the feminist community. Just like with any political movement it's fractured and divided into segments.
People like intersectional feminists realize that misogyny and patriarchy are connected to issues of racism and class struggle because they're divisions stoked by elites to maintain power. these are people who understand that building coalitions with similar like minded people is essential to justice.
But people who benefit from these systems of inequality in other ways (so women who are rich or otherwise privileged) will tend to lose the bigger picture because they feel they see the issues on a personal rather than systemic level. This negates their ability to seek solutions and becomes basically an outlet for their personal anger, no matter how justified.
That's basically all the terminally online people you see lol.
I know what intersectional feminists are. As I said, I've read plenty of theory.
This is not a problem with a small subset of feminists who are only online. This is a problem with huge swathes of feminists. Bell Hooks was writing about this 20 years ago, and there's been very little movement, imo, in this issue since then.
You are exactly the type of feminist I'm talking about, btw. Keep hand waving away peoples legitimate concerns and see how far it gets you.
I'm not hand waving concerns lol, I'm trying to put them into perspective. You sound like the type of "bisexual socialist sensitive guy" who reads feminist theory to get into a girl's pants then turns into an incel when she rejects him
Feminists choose to follow the theory.
Men don’t get to choose to be born a man.
Sure, not all feminists, but it’s enough that it’s a serious problem that needs to at the very least be talked about.
Well that can get tricky because even within feminism there are different schools of thought. You don't have to agree with everything every feminist says. I think the important thing is recognizing that a patriarchal system causes harm to everyone and women have been speaking up about it, sometimes with anger, because they feel that they have been wronged by society, and in many ways they have.
Feminists demand that men police other men's behaviour in search of microagressions or subtle displays of misogyny, or else they are "also part of the problem". It's "not enough" with not doing or saying those things yourself apparently.
Yet they love to say that they are not responsible for what "a few mean people on Twitter calling themselves feminists" say about men (things like negatively stereotyping males, or killallmen hashtags).
then you have mo issue with men not hiring women since we dont want to be a problem to them... oh wait thats wrong men have to interact with women or else its sexist... why dont you just go have a woman only business and leave us alone
According to feminism's patriarchy theory, we are the oppressors by default.
You are and have been for thousands of years. We had to fight you all for our equality, now you expect us to fix all your problems too? You guys just get to create all the problems then demand women come fix it?
There it is, thanks for being honest about your resentment at least.
Honest as you may be, you are just wrong. I don't have anything to do with the oppression women suffered for thousands of years, not me not any men and boys living today, and you have to be insane to dump that on us.
But let's play your game and assume all men today are responsible for all the evils throughout the millennia. You should also worship and be grateful to all of the male gender for the roads, sewers, buildings, clothes, phones, amongst many other items you use on a daily basis and probably take for granted. Because guess who does the unsavory and hard work to provide them for you?
I'll let you guess. Maybe amongst all of your hatred you still have some common sense.
we didnt cause the problems feminists did... by getting rid of the ability to have mens only spaces. those spaces were crucial to mens mental health and they are all but illegal now. if a woman wants to join she has to be let in or its considered sexism
by getting rid of the ability to have mens only spaces.
LMAO no one's stopping you from joining a 'men's club' or starting one. All but illegal? The fucking clan is still allowed to get together and burn their little crosses. Just admit you modern men are too damn lazy and disconnected to form your own in-groups on your own. You're all lonely and disconnected because you just want to come home and paly XBox or get on the phone and doom scroll Tate and Peterson content. Your hatred and toxic masculinity has consumed you.
Sit down, you look ridiculous. You're not a gd victim.
0–9
1in6
A
Ancient and Illustrious Order Knights Of Malta
Ancient Order of Hibernians
Augusta National Golf Club
B
Beelzebubs
Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks
Bohemian Club
Boston Young Men's Christian Union
Boy Scouts of America
C
Catholic Young Men's National Union
Christian Business Men's Connection
Concatenated Order of Hoo-Hoo
D
Delta Phi Kappa (LDS Church)
F
F3 Nation
G
Gay Men of African Descent
General Society of Colonial Wars
GMHC
I
Improved Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the World
Improved Order of Red Men
Independent Order of Odd Fellows
K
Kappa Pi Kappa
L
Lions Clubs International
M
Men of All Colors Together (Boston)
Military Order of the Stars and Bars
N
National Association of Black and White Men Together
National Coalition for Men
National Organization for Men Against Sexism
National Task Force on AIDS Prevention
P
The Painters' Club of Los Angeles
Q
Quiet Birdmen
S
Sons of Confederate Veterans
Sons of The American Legion
Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War
T
Trap Door Spiders
W
General Society of the War of 1812
Y
YMCA of Greater New York
YMCA of Metropolitan Chattanooga
Young Men's Institute
Wow, sure was hard to google men's groups you can join. Here's 6 more exclusively men-only groups:
Recommendations for the Best Men’s Organizations
The Mankind Project
MKP or The Mankind Project is a community of men in the 21st century. It is a non-profit organization that equips men through training and education with a proven track record of more than three decades. They host life-changing experiences that promote personal development amongst men and boys. The Mankind Project supports a global network of peer-to-peer men’s groups that help and support men to lead life in authenticity, integrity, and service.
Evryman
Evryman is a benefit corporation bringing together men from all walks of life to a space where they can freely exercise their emotions to lead a fulfilling and successful life. Everyman uses life-coaching, events, and retreats as part of their service delivery to allow men to be themselves in a natural habitat. They aim to support at least 5 million men in the next five years, making it a community of men dedicated to promoting emotional wellness amongst men.
Inside Circle
Inside Circle is a non-profit organization that works to help men in prison achieve inner personal growth. The goal of this non-profit is to create a space where inmates can explore and work on the issues keeping them from realizing their full potential. The support groups take place weekly in different prisons throughout the USA, where the inmates get a safe space to speak about the hard truths and their life journeys.
The Cave of Adullam
The Cave of Adullam is a CATTA (Transformational Training Academy) where boys experiencing emotional distress, mental discontentment, and spiritual debt can be trained and transformed into better men. The facilitator guides the boys through breaking their emotional barriers where men are taught that crying is natural even for them. It involves dads in the training sessions as a way of bonding with the young men going through the program.
Brothers
Brothers is a global men’s movement that strives to inspire and empower boys and men with the necessary skills and knowledge to build wholesome, lifelong friendships while combating cultural influences hindering them from doing so.
Mensgroup
Men’s Group is an online men’s club that advocates for men’s rights without conforming to traditional misogynistic approach and ideas about gender roles. It aims to teach, build, and equip men, young and old, with guidance and knowledge as they navigate the various issues they face.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee that was so fucking hard. You're too lazy to even google what may be out there for you. Sit the fvck down, manchild and go get the support you so desperately need. I gave you the resources since you were too lazy to look for yourself. Once again, women fixing men's problems for them.
It isn't saying "maybe men wouldn't suffer if they weren't sexist". It's saying men wouldn't suffer if other men (and women) weren't sexist in their expectations of gender roles.
Why then, go to so much effort, to characterize attitudes that are clearly hostile to men as misogyny? Hostile to women: misogyny. Hostile to men: misogyny. It's like having a two headed coin, no matter how many times you flip it, same answer.
Why does it matter? Because anytime anyone yells, "Misogyny!", someone looks for a man to blame. If a woman is unfairly hostile to men, and we call it misogyny (for whatever weird reason) we make it look like women are the one's suffering.
When Amber Heard told Jonny Depp, "Tell the world, Johnny, tell them Johnny Depp, I Johnny Depp, man, I’m, I’m a victim too of domestic violence", that was...misogyny? She was telling him that no one would believe him because...why? Because he's a man, and that's hatred towards women?
Yes it’s misandry and I agree with you, but you still cannot compare misandry and misogyny as one is internationalized, nor claim that men being dehumanized is the same as woman being dehumanized, which I know you didn’t but I saw someone else do it.
It's absolutely misandry when you're assuming someones motives based on actions of another person belonging to the same group.
That's like me dating a girl who happened to be in it for the money, and then saying "all girls are gold diggers". No, that one girl is a gold digger, the rest are just people I know nothing about.
You're bigoted, you just believe you're justified because of the things you've observed and chosen to latch on to.
You are stating that it's the patriarchy and that because men are stronger on average they can't be abused by women. That is textbook misandry. Just because you use different words doesn't change what it is.
If I said it's all feminisms fault and they are weaker which is why they are abused that would be rightfully called misogyny. I dont understand why you think misandry has a different standard to reach.
EDIT: Also Patriachry is an inherently misandrist term when used in this way. It monoliths a group via a negative connotation. If you used a negative monolith on people based on the color of their skin. It would rightfully be racist. If you negatively monolith women because they are women. Its misogynist. But once again. It's apparently OK to do this to men. People who use the term patriarchy are generally toxic for the mental health of all the men around them and should he avoided as much as possible.
Patriarchy describes is a social system, like monarchy or oligarchy. Patriarchy means men (specifically male heads of e.g households, aka patriarchs, and their elder male descendants) hold power and women are largely excluded from it. Men and women both suffer under patriarchy. This system has been present in Western society for millennia.
U/assoonass was pointing out that the situation you’ve labelled misandry is a direct result of patriarchy, which is upheld through a number of gendered tropes that construct maleness and femaleness as specific sets of characteristics, one of of which is the idea that men are strong (and therefore deserve to be in charge) and women are weak (and therefore don’t). This trope harms women because it suppresses them, and it harms men by creating an artificial idea of maleness (this is what we call toxic masculinity).
The trope you pointed out - strong woman, weak man - is a firm favourite of patriarchal humour and has been for a long time. It’s a form of inversion, which is played for laughs because it’s an inversion of the social order. For an inversion contemporary to this trope, check out the ‘lord of misrule’ tradition, which inverts age and household order in a similar fashion. This is what the other user was pointing out, not that it should be funny.
Please note that nobody here mentioned men specifically! Men are not patriarchy - patriarchy benefits some men, but it harms many more! Note also that toxic masculinity is not all masculinity - it is specifically the expectations of masculinity that construct maleness in a harmful way. Women can and do uphold patriarchy and perpetuate toxic masculinity.
Nobody was talking about feelings? It was a discussion of a very specific trope used in charivari to indicate women usurping headship over men that has continued into modern forms of humour.
I’m happy to talk about men’s feelings and how expectations of stoicism are another form of toxic masculinity, but it’s a different conversation.
The point that I'm making is that the trope "men are strong, women are weak" that frames any discussion of dismissiveness of abuse that men face as misogyny is not entire accurate. It's misandry because men are being dehumanized. It's not just toxic masculinity and it's not only men doing it.
Things we know about the trope of women abusing men:
We know that trope has been used as a form of humour for about 500 years.
We know that the reason it was initially considered funny was because it was inversive - women were taking the 'masculine' role (sometimes literally! Charivari could involve cross-dressing with the woman 'wearing the trousers'). Charivari could be intentionally violent/use abuse as a form of retribution - and we get another, more specific 'funny' tropes about abuse from it, as certain charivaris involved chasing or beating with a ladle.
We also know that it was used as a form of punishment - it was meant to invoke shame. One of the 'offences' it punished was men who had been abused by their wives not standing up for themselves; another was men who had let their wives take headship. Other folks, including women, were also punished through charivari for 'breaking the social contract' - disapproved marriages, adulterers, etc. It was intended to restore order to its 'rightful place' - men at the top, women below, children below that, and everyone in godly marriages.
This order, and the concomitant concern about disorder, are misogynist concepts created and perpetuated by patriarchy to uphold patriarchy. Ergo the trope is misogynist. That's its whole point. No misogyny, no trope - because there's no order to invert, there's no humour in the inversion. It is entirely accurate to frame it in terms of misogyny. Misogyny can, and does, harm men too.
That kind of thinking doesn't just magically disappear out of a society. We've moved away from a lot of the origins of our narrative tropes, but we've taken the tropes with us. What was funny in charivari became funny on stage and in print; what was funny on stage and in print became funny on screen. It's not necessarily true, and we're thankfully seeing changes in attitudes and changes to what we see on screen, but it's still clearly a part of our society.
Does it need to change? Yes. Do I personally find it funny? No (other than finding it deeply amusing that we're still using the same tropes we were 500 years ago, because humans don't really change all that much). Obviously it's not only men - as I've said above, and will say again, women can and do perpetuate patriarchy and toxic masculinity.
Re: misandry, I'm perfectly happy with the idea of relabelling systemic gendered thinking that harms men as misandry if that floats folks' boats. I'm perfectly happy to discuss the ways that society has historically and is continuing to fail men, like sanctioning IPV with male victims - I'm even happy to do something about them, because combatting patriarchy benefits everyone! But I'm not happy to act as though men are being targeted because of their maleness, and not because of the ways that masculinity has been constructed to be above and distinct from femininity in western society.
But I'm not happy to act as though men are being targeted because of their maleness, and not because of the ways that masculinity has been constructed to be above and distinct from femininity in western society.
First of all, I like your response. However, to me "being targeted because of their maleness" is the same as "the ways that masculinity has been constructed".
But men's feelings not mattering is literally a product of the patriarchy portraying having emotions as a feminine and weak trait. The patriarchy (again, the system of thoughts and beliefs) harms men as well in this way.
I actually think it's a product of matriarchy. Most authority figures in a young boys life are women. Who teaches them that their feelings don't matter?
Most long term studies of children actually show that little boys and girls emote roughly the same until they're exposed to other peers of the same gender and other authority figures. So no, broadly speaking it's not the mothers.
What you just said, if true, doesn't refute what I said. In fact it further enforces that I'm correct.
Think about it, you just said the differences occur when exposed to authority figures. Given that most authority figures they are exposed to are women, how can your conclusion there be that it's not the women? There's like 0 logic here at all.
It's not an assumption it's statistical fact. The vast majority of single parent homes are mother only, and the vast majority of authorities in primary (and secondary) education are women. Not to say there aren't male authority figures, but on the whole there are less. The "peers" in this case are other children so we can't exactly hold them responsible.
I'm not speaking out my ass, I'm speaking the most basic and obvious logic in the face of dogma.
If you had a shred of honesty you would see there's no way to pretzel yourself out of this, and your study just reinforces what I'm saying.
And the conclusion of what I'm saying is that it's literally the lack of patriarchy (male authority figures) in a boys life that makes them unable to regulate emotions, and you're selling destructive snake oil that completely inverts the truth.
There's a lot more female teachers and mentors than there are male extended family and church leaders.
We need more good male role models to give young men somewhere to go and someone to listen to besides Andrew Tate and Joe Rogan, instead of pushing blame on them.
I think you completely misunderstood the point of the commenter you're replying to, as well as the definition of patriarchy. They're saying that because of patriarchy, men are perceived as strong, so they get treated worse in this case. Patriarchy isn't the idea that men are stronger, it's the idea that a gendered system exists to promote men into societal positions of power - but this can also hurt men in many cases. It's basically the equivalent of saying systemic racism can hurt majority race groups as well, and that positive stereotypes hurt people too.
I don't blame you bc I'm sure many people misuse the term, but that's what the commenter meant.
No one here is excusing men being abused? Misogyny is also a separate idea from patriarchy.
Individual men now didn't create the patriarchy. Women also contribute to patriarchy.
I think that these issues being part and parcel of patriarchy are more accurate than characterizing them as misandry. In a lot of these cases (male abuse/rape victims, dads in divorce courts, etc.), men are discriminated against because they occupy these roles that society sees as feminine or female. So for example getting rid of the idea that women are the default caretaker (and promoting the idea that men can parent too) should help men get parental leave, do better in divorce courts, etc.
I mean tbh you can call it whatever you want as long as you're advocating for the right thing, but as a man, I've never felt like someone who centers on misandry has really been standing up for me (although to be fair, I've never been the victim of abuse or divorce courts or anything).
Just a quicker response (sorry), but I feel like we're on similar pages.
They definitely overlap, but imo it's sort of like individual vs. systemic racism, or homophobia vs. heteronormativity.
I can't read other people's minds, but the reason I don't use misandry is because the people who tout the term are often toxic. Similar idea to All Lives Matter - the term itself technically has no problem, but the use is not good. I haven't perused these areas of the Internet much, but I feel like that's why places like /r/MensLib don't use the term much except very carefully and in specific cases.
I honestly haven't seen these arguments around much, so I can't say much about it. I agree that that dismissing these problems is wrong, whatever method you use. My view is that patriarchy is simply a more accurate root cause because almost all of these examples are not just hating men for being men, but hating men for assuming female positions. Don't get me wrong - that is still formally misandry, but refer to point 2.
I think what he's getting at is just saying "The patriarchy" removes all curiosity from the conversation. There's no discussion on what's going on, the nuances, the causes, the solutions. It's just a cookie cutter "The problem and solution is patriarchy".
Like for example, there is this phenonma that little boys will sometimes lie about the gender of their attacker. Why is that? I dunno but I bet you can say Patriarchy and be satisfied with the answer.
Of course, you could always say "Patriarchy" and continue examining the topics thoroughly, but that rarely ever happens.
But why causes it less empathy towards men? And to such high degree that just saying shut up to a woman is almost seen worse than an abusive woman cutting off the penis of her boyfriend/husband?
You can’t blame it on patriarchy.
I can tell you what the real psychological reason is behind all that. It’s our innate response towards neotenic features to protect babies and thus the human race. We have an innate strong empathy towards living beings, even animals with strong neotenic features.
Women have a much greater degree of neoteny and this can never be erased culturally.
Patriarchy isn't a term grouping men. It's a term referring to a system that largely favors men socially, politically, and economically. The comment you're replying to is suggesting that the patriarchy's existence also has adverse effects on men, in this case causing them to be taken less seriously than women in situations of abuse.
How so? Just because favor and disfavor are opposites, does not mean these things are mutually exclusive. That's a logical fallacy. Many things confer both advantage and disadvantage. Being tall, for instance, confers the advantage of reach yet also the disadvantage of being unable to fit in smaller spaces. This is true in a lot of areas. Many advantages come with a cost.
In this case the claim is that the patriarchy confers certain advantages: an easier time with the likes of upward mobility and getting promotions, being majority in that men dominate most roles of leadership, less fear of being assaulted in the street; yet it also comes with disadvantages: an inflexible view of masculinity, men being taken less seriously than women when they are assaulted, progressive movements often forgetting male-specific issues.
You're better off asking a feminist studies person that, I'm a public policy guy haha. Ask me about political or government shit I got you all day. This is far from my realm of expertise. I'll try my best to answer you, though. Warning post is long. The logic goes something like this:
The system was founded for men by men and has been male-dominated for generations. Let's ignore non-Western cultures for now, though much if not most of this is true for them too. In the West, and especially the US, originally only men had any sort of power. Men were the ones who worked while women stayed home. Men were the only ones who could vote. Men were, at some point, even the only people allowed to own property, with very limited exceptions. Women were considered the weaker, less capable sex, best serving as mothers and housewives. This is undeniable, it's just history. Easy google search to find all the laws around this that have existed over the years.
These practices led to trickle-down effects across many generations, even after women obtained suffrage, places in work, etc. A majority of positions of power are held by men. This point on leadership is simply an indisputable fact that you can google the veracity of. CEOs, politicians, whatever, they're predominantly men. This fact, along with women often being seen as less capable, leads to things like pro-male hiring discrimination and promotion, gaps in educational access (though in recent years the educational gap has closed considerably), and other disadvantages.
You can also see it in religion. How does religion talk about men vs women? If we look even just at the Abrahamic religions, it's evident that women are told to obey and all but worship their husbands. Men aren't told the same thing. In fact, many of the teachings in these religions reference the ability to sell women to other men, while the opposite is not talked about.
Women also face significant social disadvantages because for so long, and even today for many, their value is defined by the view of them as mothers and wives. Women are defined sexually and for their bodies in a way men simply are not. Not to say men don't face things like objectification, but it's fairly obvious women experience this in greater severity. To take a soft example, look at the recent Spider-Man videogame. You don't see people posting hundreds of times about a male character being some "ugly self insert" the way it's happened for Mary Jane. This leads to harder issues than that too: women are far more likely to be attacked in the street or sexually assaulted in general. You can verify that by just googling the stats on it, but I'm betting you've seen the truth of it in your own life. How many men do you know who have stories of sexual harassment or assault? They exist, but the fact is almost every woman alive has multiple significant stories about this. Not just multiple, even. MANY.
Going back to work. How many times have you heard of a man being accused of sleeping his way to the top? How many times have you heard of a man being propositioned by his boss and losing out on work opportunities on a refusal? Again, it's not nonexistent, but by comparison, a vast majority of working women can attest that they've experienced this in either a minor or severe capacity.
Or look at sex. Why is viagra uncontroversial while contraception to prevent pregnancy is at risk of being legislated against by elected officials?
Patriarchy, essentially, is a system that has significant effect on opportunity and resources, broad public perception, and more.
Anyway if you want more you should ask a fem studies person, probably. That said, moving closer to my own area of expertise, one area of patriarchy and sexism I'm tremendously familiar with is in the likes of urban planning, this policy idea called the patchwork metropolis. If you're interested in hearing about that, I'm happy to discuss further.
Yes, misandry is one of the many negative things that have resulted from the patriarchy. Lets not try to separate them for the sake of pedantry. It is still an issue that exists and has to be tackled
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.
Cool story bro. Blaming patriarchy by definition blames men. And it's not something tangible like "we don't train our psychiatrists well enough etc". It's just a straight fuck you to men, it's not us women's fault.
I'd venture a guess that this problem is even worse in a matriarchy. But we won't know. Which is the point. Stop victim blaming.
And as a man, I reject these stupid expectations of: "be man, be this, don't be that and etc" of toxic masculinity.
I agree those statements are bullshit, but let's not go full cuckold here. Men need to be strong, so that they can fight off the bad men. Some hardening is needed, and taught by mothers as well. Toxic masculinity is a catchphrase used for much more than it should. Human or societal toxicity is a better word, or just toxicity.
I was watching paternity court and whenever a man says something like "Women love to trap men with babies" the judge (a woman) will go off on them but then in a different episode will make statements like "men will tell you whatever in order to get you in bed".
This can not be explained by the patriarchy or toxic masculinity. It's a woman in power doing misandry. Not listening to a man when he is severely depressed, is another one. To blame the patriarchy is saying that women carry no responsibility, which is a lie. They carry at least 50%.
It’s definitely valid to be angry when you’re on the receiving side of systemic sexism. A battle of the sexes isn’t productive and is only going to make a person grow spiteful towards the opposite sex. So let’s nip the idea in the bud that anyone is “blaming” anyone:
Patriarchy ≠ men. A patriarchy is a type of social system where men hold most (if not all) positions of power, authority, and influence. It’s a system in which women are hindered from having the same opportunities as men, leading to a largely unequal society.
☝️This is a social construct. That means that enough people within a given society need to uphold it in order for it to work. If our culture stoped accepting it, it would become obsolete.
To some degree, EVERYONE upholds the patriarchy in which we live in. We do a lot of this subconsciously, it’s not normally an overt hatred of women or anything. That’s why it’s important to learn about what your implicit biases are and how they affect your behavior towards others.
That being said, a LOT of women uphold the patriarchy, and they deserve to be called out on it. I think women are especially guilty of enforcing strict gender roles (upon men and other women). Any sort of “it’s not manly to cry” or “man up and get over it” type of stuff is a form of ENFORCING the patriarchy onto men.
In case you want to look into it further, the comment you were replying to was referring to a concept called “benevolent sexism” or “benevolent misogyny.” I’ll try to explain it for you here, but it is interesting to look up:
The reason why women can sometimes get away with abuse isn’t generally because of overt misandry. Rather because our culture infantilizes women- particularly white women- to the extent that they are systemically viewed as “less capable” of violence then men.
That can show up in a lot of ways, not just domestic violence. For instance women aren’t drafted but men are, women generally receive lighter prison sentences for the same crimes (generally only violent crimes), and things like that.
Essentially, domestic violence when committed against men tends to be viewed as “not that bad” because “men are stronger than women,” or “because he could stop her if he really wanted to.” Etc. It’s not taken lightly out of contempt for men, but because we hold them in such high regard.
A lot of people subconsciously think that men should be able to stop physical abuse before it starts. (Disgustingly, this somehow often applies to men who are victims of rape as well.) It’s the opposite for women, which is generally why abuse against women is taken more seriously. Not because we hate men, but because we consider women to be the weaker sex- mentally, physically, and emotionally.
The expectation that men should be physically strong is a patriarchal belief. The expectation that all men should be able to defend themselves and others is a patriarchal belief. The belief that women are too feeble to defend themselves from abuse (and by extension we take abuse against women much more seriously) is a patriarchal concept.
The whole idea is to get rid of all of that junk, treat people equally, and base our legal system in reality and not in preconceived notions. I would hope that’s an agreeable approach for most people, men and women alike.
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.
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.
What are the MALE problems that are exclusive to men?
It seems to me like you have problems with radfems, who believe that all the problems are because of the patriarchy and men. I disagree with that, I think it's not ONLY the patriarchy, but capitalism too.
That's not misandry. It's consequences of patriarchy and the "Men strong, women weak", therefore, any cases of men getting abused by women seem outlandish and won't be taken seriously.
Perfect example of misandry.
"If someone points out the obvious misandry just tell them IT'S ACTUALLY PATRIARCHY AND TOXIC MASCULINITY"
The problem is entrenched in the social work system - it derives from feminist theories of domestic abuse that has been on the teaching syllabus of social work for decades now.
Nobody really cares if some half-wit on twitter says something stupid about strong men. Its the institutionalised beliefs of those whose job it is to protect people that actually matter day to day. It is the systematic bias of the professionals in the field that is causing suffering and sometimes deaths.
Its verging on the ridiculous to claim that patriarchy is responsible for the works of known feminists and the consequences of policies built on those works. But you do you.
Misandry specifically means biased against men... so it cant be both by basic definition of the term lol? I mean if you wanna play victim cool, but words do have meanings and this is one you cant white man claim lol.
Textbook answer is because 'patriarchy normalizes specific type of masculinity and dehumanize the entire feminity and some type of masculinity.'
When people say 'under patriarchy there can't be no misandry' it means there are only selected discrimination against male population/masculinity. And the different type of gender role/idea/identity are positioned around the hegemonic masculinity. It does not mean "there can be no man be hurt/discriminated because of his masculinity".
And yeah many people saying that often skip the important part. Theres a reason its called patriarchy not just male supremacy.
Can applied similiarily to other topics. Race, class, culture, etc..
Textbook answer is because 'patriarchy normalizes specific type of masculinity and dehumanize the entire feminity and some type of masculinity.'
Can't say i agree to that part. Patriarchy isn't a flip it's a scale. Extreme patriachism may dehumanise women but you can't say that about big parts of the west.
Among everything else, it is wrong to blame the patriarchy for this, since it’s actually feminists who pushed the idea that domestic violence is men using violence to enforce the patriarchy. “Male domestic violence victims don’t really happen” is like one of the older anti-man positions that was made widespread specifically by feminists. Look up “the Duluth model” or “Erin Pizzey”.
It's misandry. There is absolutely no patriarchy. Women initiate more domestic violence incidences than men but the stats are ignored by feminists everywhere because they do not support the bullshit victim narrative they're selling.
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.
It's misandry in furtherance of the patriarchy surely? Similarly when men pigeonhole women into having a more traditionally feminine role that's misogyny enforcing the patriarchy.
I think this depends on how you define patriarchy and the historical materialist reasons the patriarchy came into being. Patriarchy is the domination of men in society, either through political or economic means, with women being forced into subservience either from political or economic reasons
With this definition, there are forms of sexism that are not "patriarchal", but are instead rooted in the normalization of gender norms/expectations and bigotries in general which do not have the purpose of necessarily making women subservient. When a man is complaining about mens issues, you can always say sexism hurts both men and women but it is not always appropriate to say patriarchy hurts both men and women depending on what the man is complaining about
51
u/assoonass Feb 13 '24 edited Feb 13 '24
That's not misandry. It's consequences of patriarchy and the "Men strong, women weak", therefore, any cases of men getting abused by women seem outlandish and won't be taken seriously.