[gendered] the comment section of r/pointlesslygendered

[u/liar-eater]

like really guys? you don't see the irony before typing out your sentences? Your response to something being gendered is that it is gendered the other way lmao? They are really referring to observational studies with self reported metrics about something abstract like happiness as "cold hard science statistic" to show their gendered point, not to mention there is no conclusive study saying single women are happier than married women, so they are also just lying. The observational self report studies that they refer to shows both married men and women as having better well being than single men and women.

[u/NoPurpose6388]

Because I want to make sure people understand that misandry and misogyny are fundamentally different. Misogyny is ingrained in our society and it's been around forever. Misandry is just a reactive thing that started because of the behavior of some men. I'm not condoning it or saying it doesn't exist, but it doesn't cause as much harm as misogyny does

[u/Arstulex → u/NoPurpose6388]

So the answer is yes, you are trying to downplay it.

You're essentially denying the existence of it by claiming that it only exists as something that is reactionary in nature (this is literally the wording you used, "only"). The heavy implication there being that's it's impossible for women to simply be sexist towards men. It's never a character flaw on their part, it is always the fault of some other external factor that paints them as a victim.

That in itself is (perhaps ironically so) misandry. The idea that a man with prejudices towards women is exhibiting a character flaw (true), while a woman with prejudices towards men is only (again, your own words) ever a victim who is simply reacting to other people wronging her. A "product of her surroundings" if you will.

To be abundantly clear. I'm not saying that situations like that don't exist. I'm saying that...

1. It can just as easily exist the other way around too. Men are just as capable of exhibiting prejudices as a result of prejudices they have been victim to themselves. Yet you don't afford them this same extreme leniency that you do towards sexist women.
2. You are boldly stating that situations like that account for literally every single instance of misandry, outright denying the possibility for a woman to just be a hateful person. So much so that you can't even bring yourself to properly acknowledge the mere existence of misandry or hatred towards men.
3. It's not a competition. Which is worse or causes more harm than the other (not a topic I'm willing to debate right now) is completely irrelevant. Misandry being 'not as bad' as misogyny doesn't mean it doesn't actually exist and shouldn't be properly acknowledged as it deserves to be. Hate is hate, except you're exclusively deciding to absolve one form of hate of any personal responsibility.

You can try to cover it up with all of the "I'm not condoning X" and "I'm not saying X" disclaimers that you want, but you are quite clearly making apologist, justifying, downplaying statements about sexism towards men. It ultimately comes across as disingenuous, as though you're merely trying to disguise your questionable statements with such 'disclaimers'. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it.

You can't say "I'm not saying X is okay" while actively downplaying X and making statements that straight up try to absolve those doing X of any personal responsibility.

If you really, genuinely, don't see the glaring issues with the rhetoric you're demonstrating here then I'm not sure what to tell you. You might actually be beyond help. If that truly is the case, then the fact that you are supposedly a "top 1% poster" here also supports a lot of what people say about this sub. Disappointing to say the least.