If I Admit That ‘Hating Men’ Is a Thing, Will You Stop Turning It Into a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?

[ismnotwasm]

Okay, so maybe you are a man. Maybe you haven't had the easiest ride in life—maybe you grew up in poverty; you've experienced death, neglect, and despair; you hate your job, your car, your body. Maybe somebody (or multiple somebodies) pulverized your heart, or maybe you've never even been loved enough to know what a broken heart feels like. Maybe shit started out unfair and became irreparable and you never deserved any of this. Maybe everything looks fine on paper, but you're just unhappy and you don't know why. These are human problems and other human beings feel for you very deeply. It is hard to be a human. I am so sorry.
However.

Though it is a seductive scapegoat (I understand why it attracts you), none of these terrible, painful problems in your life were caused by the spectre of "misandry." You can rest easy about that, I promise! In fact, the most powerful proponent of misandry in modern internet discourse is you — specifically, your dogged insistence that misandry is a genuine, systemic, oppressive force on par with misogyny. This is specious, it hurts women, and it is hurting you. Most feminists don't hate men, as a group (we hate the system that disproportionately favors men at the expense of women), but — congratulations! — we are starting to hate you. You, the person. Your obsession with misandry has turned misandry into a self-fulfilling prophecy. (I mean, sort of. Hating individual men is not the same as hating all men. But more on that in a minute.) Are you happy now? Is this what you wanted? Feminism is, in essence, a social justice movement—it wants to take the side of the alienated and the marginalized, and that includes alienated and marginalized men. Please stop turning us against you.

It is nearly impossible to address problems facing women—especially problems in which men are even tangentially culpable—without comments sections devolving into cries of "misandry!" from men and replies of "misandry isn't real" from women. Feminists are tired of this endless, fruitless turd-pong: hollow "conversation" built on willful miscommunication, bouncing back and forth, back and forth, until both sides throw up their hands and bolt. Maybe you are tired of this too. We seem to be having some very deep misunderstandings on this point, so let's unpack it. I promise not to yell.

http://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop-turning-it-into-a-self+fulfilling-prophecy


Heh.

[Little Star]

1. Double Heh! k&r

[MadrasT]

2. I am so glad you posted this.

I saw it yesterday (from my phone) but didn't have the energy to fire up my computer and make an OP out of it.

It's awesome.

[Vinnie From Indy]

3. What a wonderful straw man argument.

If I admit that I do not believe mysandry is the cause of my pain, will you stop threatening my entire gender with hatred?

[MadrasT]

4. Oh, the irony of this statement being made in a feminist forum...

will you stop threatening my entire gender with hatred?

[boston bean]

5. Vinny has been blocked. It is disruptive to say feminists, in a safe haven group,

hate men.

[zazen]

36. hah, and we're "threatening" him? that's delusional n/t

[boston bean]

6. Really good read.

The only issue I take with the article is the slam on radical feminists.

there are so many strains of feminism, it's not fair to use "radical" to describe all radical feminists as man haters.

To me radical feminism is working outside the system to challenge the patriarchy. The author of the article believes the patriarchy exists. In my book, she is a radical feminist.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

26. "there are so many strains of feminism"

No kidding. One of the things the Right does is to lump everything together.

[CrispyQ]

38. This:

One of the things the Right does is to lump everything together.

So true! No nuance. No subtly. Just black/white, up/down, yes/no, never any middle ground.

"You're with us or against us."

You can't spell coward without a W.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

43. That's how they defeated the ERA before...

They told women if the ERA passed men would be coming into public bathrooms and women would have to stop wearing bras and dresses and shaving their legs and arm pits and would have to be like men.

That's right, Republicans claimed they were the heroes of mom and apple pie.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

7. isn't gender rights basically a subset of individual rights?

and although many individuals are not treated respectfully shouldn't we as individuals strive to make it that way for all?

or am I missing something here?

[boston bean]

8. I think you may be missing something here...

from the article:

Part One: Why Feminism Has "Fem" in the Name, or, Why Can't We All Just Be Humanists?

I wish, more than anything, that I could just be a "humanist." Oh, man, that would be amazing! Because that would mean that we lived in a magical world where all humans were born on equal footing, and maybe I could live in a house shaped like a big mushroom and birds would help me get dressed or something. Humanism is a gorgeous dream, and something to strive for. In fact, it is the exact thing that feminism is striving for right now (and has been working on for decades)! Yay, feminism!

Unfortunately, the reason that "fem" is a part of the word "feminism" is that the world is not, currently, an equal, safe, and just place for women (and other groups as well—in its idealized form, intersectional feminism seeks to correct all those imbalances). To remove the gendered implications of the term is to deny that those imbalances exist, and you can't make problems disappear just by changing "feminism" to "humanism" and declaring the world healed. That won't work.

Think of it like this. Imagine you're reading a Dr. Seuss book about a bunch of beasts living on an island. There are two kinds of beasts: Fleetches and Flootches. (Stick with me here! I love you!) Though the two are functionally identical in terms of intellect and general competence, Fleetches are in charge of pretty much everything. They hold the majority of political positions, they make the most money (beast-bucks!), they dominate the beast media, they enact all kinds of laws infringing on the bodily autonomy of Flootches. Individually, most of them are perfectly nice beasts, but collectively they benefit comfortably from inequalities that are historically entrenched in the power structure of Beast Island. So, from birth, even the most unfortunate Fleetches encounter fewer institutional roadblocks and greater opportunity than almost all Flootches, regardless of individual merit. One day, a group of Flootches (the ones who have not internalized their inferiority) get together and decide to agitate to change that system. They call their movement "Flootchism," because it is specifically intended to address problems that disproportionately disadvantage Flootches while benefiting Fleetches. That makes sense, right?

Now imagine that, in response, a bunch of Fleetches begin complaining that Flootchism doesn't address their needs, and they have problems too, and therefore the movement should really be renamed Beastism. To be fair. The problem with that name change is that it that undermines the basic mission of the movement, because it obscures (deliberately, I'd warrant) that beast society is inherently weighted against Flootches. It implies that all problems are just beast problems, and that all beasts suffer comparably, which cripples the very necessary effort to prioritize and repair problems that are Flootch-specific. Those problems are a priority because they harm all Flootches, systematically, whereas Fleetch problems merely harm individual Fleetches. To argue that all problems are just "beast problems" is to discredit the idea of inequality altogether. It is, in fact, insulting.

Or, if you didn't like that one, here's another ridiculous metaphor: When women say things like "misandry isn't real," we mean it the same way you might say, "Freddy Krueger isn't real." The idea of Freddy Krueger is real, Freddy Krueger absolutely has the power to scare you, and if you suspend your disbelief it's almost plausible to blame all of the unsolved knife-crime in the world on Freddy Krueger. Additionally, it is totally possible for some rando to dress up like Freddy Krueger and start murdering teens all over the place. But that doesn't meant that Freddy-Krueger-the-dude is literally real. He is never going to creep into your dreams at night and murder you. He has the power to frighten, there are isolated forces in the world that resemble him, but he is ultimately a manufactured menace.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. that would be the ideal ... yes, that all are treated equally as humans

gender none withstanding.

I think we should all strive toward this ideal, yes.

that we have not achieved this and that men as a group are generally respected more so than the female gender is the issue.

that gays and ethnic groups are also not recognized their full rights (and therefore their full potential) is a loss to all humankind.

[boston bean]

12. Of course, TA.

However, women can have a group dedicated to their promoting their issues.

This is one of the major memes that I see on DU. That because you speak out against sexism or misogyny that you are somehow insensitive to other struggles. That is just not the case. I am not saying you are saying that. I am pointing out how destructive this kind of thinking can be.

Most of the time this dismissiveness revolves around class issues. My thoughts are that even if there were no class issue, that women would still face sexism and misogyny.

All groups have a focus. That doesn't mean that one trumps the other. Or that someone doesn't care, about LGBT rights and Civil Rights etc, because they work and speak on issues that affect women.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

13. yes. the class warfare even if there was a classless society gender issues could still exist.

[haikugal]

27. Well put!

[nomorenomore08]

50. I love the Freddy Krueger analogy.

In part because it points to what scared little crybabies - frightened as if by a fictional character - most MRA types are.

[CrispyQ]

39. We have generations of conditioning to reverse.

Aya Chebbi: The Right To Be A Woman

http://www.asafeworldforwomen.org/womens-rights/wr-africa/wr-tunisia.html

This violence begins early for some of us. It starts while we are still floating in the safety of our mother’s womb when outside the father, the family, and the community declare that they prefer a boy - a son. It continues up until we rise into adulthood and find ourselves judged and punished by society for the sole reason that we are women.

~more at link - it's heart wrenching reading

We have generations of conditioning to reverse.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

41. yes, I know. but, if we (all of us) treat everyone (all of us) with respect then

the healing can begin. race, color, creed, gender, class should make no difference in a perfect world. we should strive for this ideal. knowing that as humans we will ultimately fail sometimes, more so than others. forgiveness and mercy should be shown.

we can not reverse or, go back in time, we must move forward striving always for equality.

[hfojvt]

9. that really becomes the problem

"Feminism is, in essence, a social justice movement—it wants to take the side of the alienated and the marginalized, and that includes alienated and marginalized men. Please stop turning us against you."

Because it is not, and it does not, and that is what some of the men complain about.

And the following line illustrates it

"It is nearly impossible to address problems facing women—especially problems in which men are even tangentially culpable ..."

That, right there, is a blanket indictment, a sweeping negative generalization of ALL men. It's like the difference between

1) I hate men who constantly make sexist jokes or I hate it when men make sexist jokes and all the other men laugh

and

2) Fu%&ing men, they are always making sexist jokes.


Are MEN tangentially culpable or are SOME men tangentially culpable or even MOST men tangentially culpable? Because if it is the first claim, then that seems to me to be anti-men, or, in other words, misandry. And when men complain about misandry on an internet forum, they are not usually making the claim that misandry is a huge social problem, or that misandry has ruined their life. No, the claim is rather, that misandry is often tolerated, if not embraced, by some on the left. And some men, for some reason, do not find that to be copacetic. Go figure.

[boston bean]

15. What power does your examples hold over you? Do you make less on the dollar?

Are you having your rights concerning your own body taken away from you?

The point is that there is no matriarchy that exists in the US that institutionalizes misandry. There is however a patriarchy that institutionalizes misogyny.

This is really not that difficult.

[hfojvt]

21. that's the typical justification for bigotry

Since, after all, Christians are not persecuted in this country, it becomes okay to bash them in a supposedly tolerant forum.

And you have nicely contradicted the OP, just like I claimed.

It's really not that difficult either, if somebody spits in my face, regardless of what impact that has on the rest of my life, I am either going to hit them back, or call them out for their bad behaviour.

But I guess spitting in people's faces is all part of that great fight for social justice.

[boston bean]

22. Can you make the distinction please.

Your arguments sound a lot like those who want to do away with affirmative action.

We are discussing an insitutional issue that effect broad swaths of women, in quantifiable ways.

Not some issue where someone was a jerk to you personally. That shit happens to everyone.

[Moonwalk]

35. It's not a matter of "not-persecuted"--it's a matter of persecution by those not-persecuted...

Buddhists are not persecuted in this country either. Do you see them "bashed"? Why not? Well, probably because they aren't creating laws where everyone's kid has to pray in school or read up on creationism or that gays can't marry because their Bible says it's wrong. These laws are not created, by and large, by Buddhists or Jews or Hindus. They are created by large Christian churches with money and power and the desire to make their states/country more Christian. If a group of Orthodox Jews managed to pass a city law preventing any business from being open on Saturday, then you'd probably be rightly angry with the Jews of the city for doing that, even if not all the Jews had a part in it.

But we'll grant that "Christianity" as an institution is not creating these unfair laws, but rather certain Christians/demoninations are so all Christians should not be bashed for them.

However, if i"m reading you right, the contradiction seems to be on your part. You say if someone spits on you, you get to spit on them back. So if a self-proclaimed feminist spits on you, you get to spit on her. Fair enough. But you seem to be saying that if said feminist spits on you, you get to spit on all feminists--and all they believe in/whatever they have to say about our patriarchal system. Hm. Talk about privilege. You just said that people shouldn't bash Christians (or men I assume) because some are creating unfair laws. Yet you reserve the right to spit on all Feminists for what a few do to you?

And they're not even persecuting you with unfair laws. Have feminists creating laws which forbid you from getting, say, a vasectomy? A law that would apply only to men only and interfere with their health and family planning decisions? Or have women in power created a law which allows men to be paid less than women for doing the same job? Who has spit on you in a way that affected not just you personally, but every man in your state? I can certainly point to men in states passing restrictive abortion laws that affect all women in that state. Can you point to laws that affect all of your gender in the same way?

If not, how are the two modes of "spitting" on someone comparable?

There is no contradiction that I see in the essay. But I do see quite a few contradictions in what you're saying if I"m reading you right.

[BainsBane]

79. That's not what it says

Last edited Tue Apr 2, 2013, 01:46 PM - Edit history (1)

You assume discrimination is only about the most surface elements. If I say something offensive to a man, I'm being a jerk. If a man says something offensive to me, he is being a jerk. The difference is that the power structure is such that government, the courts, and corporate enterprise are dominated by white men. So while the act of spitting or saying something jerky may in of itself no different, when that jerkiness is embedded in a social structure that treats women as inferior, pays them less, seeks to control of their bodies away, and affords them inferior economic and legal status, that means the entire culture is structured around discrimination against women. That does not exist for men. Sexist comments in the workplace, for example, are not just comments when directed at women. Courts have found they create a hostile work environment that is deliberately and purposefully discriminatory and serves to keep women out of professions, pays them less, and promotes less qualified men over women. Violent crimes against women go un-investigated, authorities don't bother to test rape kits, only a small percentage of rapists and batterers go to jail, while 1 in 3 women are either raped or beaten by their partners. If you think the circumstances faced by men are the same, you're not being honest.


You may not like something a woman says to you, and she may indeed be a jerk for saying whatever that offending thing was. But the difference is that statement isn't embedded in an entire social structure that treats men as inferior.
If a few women do hate men, that has no impact on your life unless you happen to be employed by one, in which case you have legal recourse. Her feelings are not part of a broader culture that devalues the lives of men as it does women. Her views are hers, and while unfortunate, they have no broader implications beyond her because women do not wield the structural power that men do. Women's views are not the norm in government, the courts, and corporate America as men's are. Those cultures all operate in ways that privilege maleness and penalize women, not only economically but even deprives them of their basic safety and life, as statistics on rape and domestic violence reveal.

Your argument is the same as pretending prejudice against whites is the same as racism. It is not at all. It is not part of a structural inequality in a society where the lives of black people are shorter, whether they face far greater rates of imprisonment for the same crimes committed by whites, face the death penalty more often. They earn less, whereas a white man won't be stopped based on the color of his skin for being in a good neighborhood or driving a nice car.

The argument about racism against whites comes straight from white supremacist discourse, and it was those organizations that perpetrated those views so now even so-called liberal men repeat that language about how they have it so bad and racism against whites is as bad as against blacks. It's pure bullshit. Your argument that misandry (which does not exist as a structural issue) is any way comparable to pervasive structural sexism is not only false, it is itself sexist because it falsifies the entire legacy of subjugation that women have faced and continue to try to climb out from, just as arguments about racism against whites distorts reality in an effort to create a false equivalency. Such reactionary views have become so pervasive they now come out of the mouths of people who claim to be progressive, which I find truly extraordinary. Dominant cultural groups are desperate to hang on privilege, and such arguments play into that effort. You may not even realize that is what you are engaged in. I suggest you think about the implications of what you are arguing and undertake an honest assessment of the standing of women and people of color in history and their current structural conditions before you voice such arguments again.

[hfojvt]

84. that's a whole lot of verbiage

used to justify a double standard.

"Do it in the name of heaven, justify it in the end"

What is pure bullshit is to pretend that one person being a jerk is somehow not as bad as another person being a jerk.

[BainsBane]

87. I didn't say that

and you obviously didn't read or understand anything I wrote. Your argument is tantamount to saying calling someone a jerk is the same as subjecting them to rape, domestic violence, or slavery.

[BainsBane]

80. see this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=18698

[Eleanors38]

30. Misandry is OK if $ and power are not involved?

[boston bean]

31. No, the point is misandry is not institutional.

Boy oh boy, did you even read the article?

Some woman hates a man or men. Or some group of women hates men. So? What are the effects of that.

However, the patriarchy puts contraints and expectations on men that are not right either. It's not misandry that is doing that. Feminists are mens partners in these issues.

[Eleanors38]

37. So the answer is "yes." Heard it for decades.

[boston bean]

44. the answer is no. nt

[nomorenomore08]

51. Did you really just say that feminism (in general) is not about social justice?

Of course there are exceptions to every rule - and I suppose the stereotypical overprivileged "ivory tower feminist" does exist somewhere, in some form - but the negative generalization you just made there is absurd.

[hfojvt]

56. in what way is it absurd?

to me, to be about "social justice" one would have a concern for all of those who lack privilege.

We do not generally hear that concern from feminists. Instead we head about "male privilege" as if all men have privilege and all women lack it.

Consider the distribution of wealth. In 2002, 34 million households had almost no wealth, less than $10,000 in net worth.

Now, if a person was concerned with "social justice" in general, then the goal would be to lift ALL of those 34 million out of poverty.

If, however, one is "only" concerned with "racial discrimination" then one would focus on the fact that an absurd 48.4% of black households have less than $5,000 in net worth. Whereas a "mere" 20.3% of white-non-hispanic households are in such a boat.

Now, I am NOT saying it would be a bad thing to be part of an organization dedicated to raising those black households out of poverty. That is a noble goal.

However, one could not honestly claim that such an organization was doing much of anything for the 16.6 million WNH households with less than $5,000 in net worth.

Further, if the organization dedicated to ending black poverty was going around constantly saying "white people suck" it would be even less honest to say they had any concern for the WNH who are living in poverty.

[DURHAM D]

57. Are you standing on your head?

[hfojvt]

68. "I do it again and again"

http://www.poetry-archive.com/c/father_william.html

[seabeyond]

58. so, your suggestion is it not be a womans movement but a class movement. yes. this has been

proposed by men for a while and yes, some groups of feminist have adopted this forum of movement. which is fine. that allows things to be done. but the last couple years have been REALLY REALLY REALLY clear to women that we NEED a womans movement. so i lot of the younger women have shifted.

if it had actually worked, it would have grown. but, what we saw was only a larger attack on women and us losing ground.

so, we will keep our womens movement. and we will also be a part of the social justice movement. not to mention standing up for gays in independent voice and minorities in independent voice.

[hfojvt]

67. no, the OP claimed that it already was

My point being, it is not about "social justice" as a whole but only about "social justice for some".

[LanternWaste]

69. you then believe that the Civil Rights movement were not in fact about Social Justice?

to be about "social justice" one would have a concern for all of those who lack privilege..."

As the Civil Rights movement were for the most part, concerned with African-Americans, you then believe that the Civil Rights movement were not in fact about Social Justice?

[hfojvt]

81. it was and it wasn't

In the final chapter of "Why we can't wait", Dr. King broadens the movement, saying that as the next step is to "end poverty" which would be a step that would also benefit poor whites.

My point is that the OP is basically false when it says this:

"Feminism is, in essence, a social justice movement—it wants to take the side of the alienated and the marginalized, and that includes alienated and marginalized men. Please stop turning us against you."

Because it generally only takes the side of alienated and marginalized females, and often scoffs at the idea of alienated and marginalized men. They have male privilege and when people object to that characterization, well, that is just because they benefit from male privilege and don't want to give up their benefits.

Yeah, sure, statements like that are totally on the side and with full sympathy for alienated and marginalized men.

But yes, I will say that about civil rights as well, If you are only about "social justice for SOME" then, in general, you are not about social justice.

But, in another sense, you cannot take a movement that is, say, against slavery, and say "well, what about white people?" because white people were not slaves, duh. So there are obviously some issues like that, or women's suffrage, for another example.

[Buzz Clik]

11. What the FUCK is it about this issue?

Are we so incredibly bored with our lives that we have to invent problems?

Gender wars? REALLY?

[boston bean]

14. No one is bored with their lives.

We explain our experiences and that seems to drive others crazy.

Says more about those who don't want to listen or hear, imho. What we get from some, like you, are insults. That our life must be boring. Au contraire, our lives aren't boring at all. The proof being some people can't stop themselves from reading and posting back, even if it is just insults.

[MadrasT]

17. Another disruptor

How cute

[Buzz Clik]

19. Yeah. Excuse me for getting in the way of ANOTHER brain dead thread

I turn back over to you.

[boston bean]

20. Your posts here certainly fit the "brain dead" description.

Your comments added absolutely nothing to the discussion. You just appeared to let us little wimmins know how boring our lives must because we speak out on issues that concern us.

Good day!

[Buzz Clik]

23. Discussion? Endless gender bashing qualifies as discussion?

Back to my original post -- how bored must one be to consider this shit a discussion.

[MadrasT]

24. How bored one must be to shit in threads they claim are too "boring" n/t

[ismnotwasm]

34. What qualifies to you as interesting?

Curious.

[LanternWaste]

73. I've noticed that many idiots purposefully confuse the words "bashing" with

I've noticed that many idiots purposefully confuse the words "bashing" with "observation and analysis".

Not that you're an idiot, mind you. Or confused. Or even purposeful...

You may simply have either a weak grasp of English as a Second Language, or are a Theatre Student practicing bad melodrama for a two week gig on Off Broadway.

Good luck!

[seabeyond]

74. what is it latern, besides the two glasses of wine. i talk the issue. and

i think i am relatively nice in the face of ugly. you know, insults ect... and still i feel i stay on point.

meh

edit. that relatively was damn challenging. lol

[excringency]

16. Victim-hood

This obsession with misandry, for me, would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. It's sad in that it smack's of he Right's growing dogma of the victim-hood of those who have always held power in this country. Christianity is under attack, defend the faith in the war against Christmas! We have no ideas other than thinly veiled attempts to maintain the riches of the 1%, so the rest of the country are takers trying to unjustly redistribute the wealth, Socialism! I say something idiotic and am quoted correctly, it's a conspiracy of the liberal media! The dominant patriarchy starts to show signs of cracking, so gee, any threat to the power and benefits I have unjustly enjoyed for all of my life becomes a menace taking the form of misandry. I find the hue and cry of misandry remarkably similar to the wailing and gnashing of teeth found in the likes of Rush, Hannity, and O'Reilly.

When I divorced years ago it was decided that I would take custody of our two daughters. This was because I was more comfortable and better in the role of caregiver. We agreed on everything ahead of time and used one lawyer for both of us. During the hearing I took the stand and the (female) judge grilled me for nearly half an hour. I was asked, "as a male, are you sure you know how to cook?" (I'm a fantastic cook by the way) "How can you possibly know how to care for little girls (ages 6 & 9)?" And my favorite question, "how do I know you aren't a pervert?" I eventually left the court and went home to my little girls with anger and bitterness in my heart. It took me a couple of weeks to put the blame for that episode where it belonged. It was the dominance of society's patriarchy that led that judge to question what she saw as a perversion of established gender roles that should be observed in a family.

It isn't misandry that is responsible for men loosing custody of their children, it is patriarchy. As men we need to accept that patriarchy is the problem. We need to realize we have unjustly gained from patriarchy all of their lives. But at the same time it is also responsible for our own suffering. Unless we are willing to acknowledge to source of our troubles (patriarchy), we will be susceptible to cloaking ourselves with an aura of false victim-hood that benefits none and hurts all. Especially wonderful girls like my babies.

[MadrasT]

18. Thank you for sharing your experience

And I will just add a "hell yes"

[ismnotwasm]

32. +1

[seabeyond]

40. this is such a very good post. i could feel the anger and was right there wiht you

knowing that you experienced that exactly. and though sorry that you did, and wrong that it was, .... how outstanding you were able to put it in the place it belongs. ergo, able to be that better person for your daughters. and i think that is what all of us in this group look for. so many see it as a means of attacking or going after without a concept and realization it is the health and healing of all, that we are really reaching for.

thank you for this post. an excellent example.

and welcome to du. i want to hear more of your voice.

[CrispyQ]

42. Thank you for an outstanding post.

It was the dominance of society's patriarchy that led that judge to question what she saw as a perversion of established gender roles that should be observed in a family.

Your last paragraph rocks.

[Skittles]

55. worthy of its own thread

very few men seem to understand how they too are victimized by sexism

[bettyellen]

76. it's not as if we haven't seen it patiently explained a dozen times lately....

just never in the magically soft stealthy way that allows a man to think he came to understanding all by himself.

[redqueen]

82. That suggestion, that we should 'sell' feminism to men in a way that feeds their fucking egos,

makes my blood boil.

How about no? How about they grow the fuck up and stop expecting to be catered to as if they were fucking spoiled children?

[seabeyond]

83. not your mama. i say repeatedly and having my share of being a mama, know when someone is demanding

i be there mama.

damn straight.

[bettyellen]

91. hell yes, it makes me crazy too

I didn't think I needed the sacasm thingey, ha ha.
figured most of you all have my number by now.

[smirkymonkey]

92. Thank YOU!

I am getting a bit sick of this crap.

[caseymoz]

25. Personally, I'm tired of the whole fight,

and frustrated that what should be easy to resolve isn't going anywhere. This article doesn't hurt, but it doesn't help.

I don't see myself as imposing any system on women. If anything, I'm as far out of power as you can get. Even if I see unfairness in the system, it's not a system I strengthen or enforce. I'm frequently disgusted at how women are treated by other men (and sometimes by women). I'm disgusted by biases against women incorporated into the system. Many men feel the same way I do.

I'll give two examples: rape in the military. I think it's a shocking scandal; I think it's an atrocity. It transcends any issue I have about "misandry." However, I'm not in the military. I'm a civilian on disability. The military does absolutely nothing I want it to do. I want its budget cut; I want it to stay out of foreign countries. If my voice isn't heard about that, I definitely have no power over rape among service members. I try to stay neutral when I'm told that men "support a rape culture." It's not like I can detach my penis to avoid collateral damage from that remark.

Another example is the Steubenville rape case. Laci Green was right when she said that the case was just one horror story after another. That was the one case where I could see the "rape culture" in action. How the boys involved called the girl a whore and slut, how the girls who were at those parties concurred, and then how the adults closed ranks around those boys. Then, when the light sentence on just two of the rapists was pronounced, how the news agencies showed sympathy toward these guys.

I was shocked and disgusted, and again, uninvolved except for blogging and posting. Yet, I'm told by feminists that men are behind this. I look between my legs and find that presence of my penis has convicted me again. As a point of fact, two of Jane Doe's female ex-friends got up on the stand and witnessed against her character, implying that she was a liar and a slut. The original prosecutor in the case, a female, tried to sabotage it.

I try not to take collateral damage from the rhetoric and outrage, and I remember that whatever feelings I have that are microscopic in comparison to rape and the tolerance of it. However, sometimes feminist rhetoric and anger gets too broad.

Maybe the limits of our language is at fault; I don't know. It's hard to listen to the discussion made in generalities about males without suddenly hearing one you have to take personally.

BTW, I'd never think of saying that feminists should instead emphasize "humanism." For one, I think humanism is an assumption of feminism. I don't even call myself feminist anymore because the term is absurd for a male. I call myself pro-feminist.

[nomorenomore08]

52. I think you're taking things more personally than you need to.

And I've been through that myself, as a man, so I can (somewhat) relate.

[caseymoz]

54. And I think many men do

which is the problem. And of course the language used is just as ambiguous to women, so you can't tell exactly which ones are meaning to insult.

[redqueen]

28. Ha, she doesn't realize that she, herself, is a radical feminist.

Her list of what feminists don't want, and correctly calling those things out as a function of patriarchy, was excellent. It also sets her apart from liberal feminists.

There are many kinds of feminists. She's a radfem. I hope she sees that soon. We need a lot more loud, proud radfems.

Thanks for posting this.

[boston bean]

29. Yeah, that is the one thing that stuck out to me.

Is that she fell for that criticism that many men fling around, to diminish feminism, in an otherwise great article.

[ismnotwasm]

33. It's a way of reaching out unfortunately

Throwing radfems under the bus-- without quite defining what they are or what they stand for.

For some doing this is apparently necessary to start a conversation although by the responses in this thread it doesn't quite work either, although I'm sure the tongue in cheek tone of the article didn't help.

The bottom line is those with privilege aren't going to acknowledge it without seeing that its necessary for social Good, without actively wanting to, staying aware, and recognizing areas where personal privilege affects others. This includes any kind of privilege.

What's hilarious to me is I see gender as a continuum, not a binary as presented here. The angriest responses to these kind of articles tend to deliberately polarize, with indignation , as opposed to a well thought out reply from a male perspective, and I greatly appreciate those who try.

Back to work (sigh)

[kjones]

45. Thoughts.

But misandry does exist in some capacity, and it does have tangible effects on some men's lives.
There are by no means as many ready examples as misogyny, but they exist.

For example, if I'm a man, I'm more likely to lose custody of my children in court. It's a systematic
bias because of the stereotypes that women are always loving mothers and men are bad fathers
who want nothing to do with their children.

Image. As a man, you are presented with just as many torturous expectations for body image
and personality as a woman is. There are direct parallels throughout. It's every bit as disruptive
to childhood development to push a girl along with the expectations of stereotypical womanhood
as it is to push a boy along with the expectations of stereotypical manhood.
Women and men models both get the airbush treatment in hollywood media, because after all,
our social collective (men and women) say that women should be skinny and buxom and
men must be lean and chiseled.

Ingrained "machismo" culture has led to many men and boys to take part in dangerous activities that
result in death or imprisonment. The "breadwinner" stereotype has led generations of men to toil
away at often very dangerous jobs. And of course, "real men" laugh at danger.
Leading to the most poignant example, lifespan. Men don't lose those extra years all because of
genetics, a "y" tacked on there. Some of that effect is because of dangerous behavior...behavior
which is a cultural expectation forced on males, in the same way expectations are forced on females.

I do not excuse misogynistic behavior, it's unacceptable in a modern society. I do not condone any
victimization or undue pressure placed on any group of people.

[boston bean]

46. Here is the issue in a nutshell.

Feminists do not hate men. We aren't hating on them, we aren't misandrists. Period. Although, that is a meme that makes the rounds, to discredit feminists and feminism.

We discuss the patriarchy and male privilege. Some men and some women get very defensive about it.

Because we acknowledge an institutional oppression of women, an institution that is controlled by men, doesn't mean we hate men, hate all men, or even hate any man. We aren't talking about individual men. But yet, some men are complete assholes, as are some women. So, what. That's life. People have individually hurt me on a personal level. However, there is an ingrained oppression built into our culture regarding women.

Feminists are friends to men in the areas you discuss, where the patriarchy makes them conform or promotes and inequality going the other way. It's not fair, and it is critiqued by feminists all the time, and is something feminists believe should change. That, as you can guess, is not misandry. It is feminism though and some think feminists hate all men... go figure.....

If you read the article, you should have seen this:

Part Four: A List of "Men's Rights" Issues That Feminism Is Already Working On

Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their "traditional" marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate "nice guys." The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don't is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of any gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it's unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.

Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate you.

If you really care about those issues as passionately as you say you do, you should be thanking feminists, because feminism is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them. The fact that you blame feminists—your allies—for problems against which they have been struggling for decades suggests that supporting men isn't nearly as important to you as resenting women. We care about your problems a lot. Could you try caring about ours?

[redqueen]

47. Perhaps a bullet point list like that could be pinned to the top of this group. nt

[seabeyond]

48. lol. nt

[redqueen]

49. No, really.

The urge to go all DEAR GOD WHATABOUTTHEMENZ is so strong for so many people.

And obviously the link between the patriarchy and these things isn't clear to most people.

[kjones]

70. That's really juvenile.

I don't think I used any all caps idiocy anywhere in my response, and I'm pretty sure my first paragraph states
that women have it much worse, outright, in American culture.

Please don't "suppose" to know me, my motives, or my comprehension of patriarchy
or social systems. I'm an anthropologist, studying society is all I do.

I consider myself an advocate for women's rights (for all human rights) and I've worked
closely with feminist anthropologists who are out there, actively researching and
working to make life better for women around the world.

[redqueen]

72. I wasn't referring to your post in that reply.

The phenomenon I was referring to is extremely common.

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/phmt-argument/

[kjones]

88. Ok then

and I read the link.

Do you believe that? That it makes sense eject either sex from a discussion about gender issues
(particularly one which is essentially addressed to a particular sex)? That men spaces are men spaces
and women spaces are women spaces and never the twain shall meet? I can understand that if
it is discussion of a specific event or topic, but not otherwise.

Advocates for demolishing patriarchal institutions, male or female...and from a male or female
perspective, should be the closest allies since they want the same outcome. A world free
of inequalities brought about by gender roles.

[nomorenomore08]

53. That's a great list of ideas and ideals. Lays out just about everything perfectly.

[kjones]

71. You are absolutely right.

I was not able to read the entire article. Sorry for repeating the points that I would
have read had I had the time to do so.

Let me be absolutely clear, I have never meant to imply that feminists hate men,
and I have no desire to discredit feminism, or the great work that it has done.

In fact, I think the terms misandry and misogyny are disruptive and inaccurate,
as very, very few people in this word hate a specific sex. As I was attempting to
explain, and as you acknowledge by using the terms "patriarchy" and "institution,"
it's a cultural problem, not an individual problem. Though yes, some individuals
embrace the culture, men and women. The western world has created a
narrative which discredits women in the public sphere. It's a mass lodged in
our country's (and many others) framework which is incredibly difficult to
remove. Which is why feminism has been at work in America for a very long
time, before even the fight for suffrage.

Some people in this forum do not seem to see that distinction.

[seabeyond]

75. have you read cnn and all the other comments section talking about american women, buy foreign,

lol. they know how to be a * obedient* woman.

no misogyny? really?

it grows....

[kjones]

89. What I said.

"In fact, I think the terms misandry and misogyny are disruptive and inaccurate,
as very, very few people in this word hate a specific sex." I say, "very few."

I do not anywhere say there are no misogynists in the world. As I do not say there
and no misandrists. What I do say that the terms are more or less meaningless in
meaningful discussion about society (unless your intent is not meaningful discussion).

There is no secret group of misogynist manipulating the world to benefit men. What
there is, is a system of cultural norms/expectation, and a whole world of normal people
who either unwilling or unable to change the status quo.

If you see a misogynist, call them out on it, but don't use it as a blanket term. The OP
essentially argues the same thing for misandry.

[seabeyond]

90. i am particular on using either misogyny or sexism. and try to keep it honest. my point

is i really disagree that there are few that hate women. i think there are many. i think it is growing. and ya

i will call it out.

[patrice]

77. Feminists are not misandrists, but misandrists can mis-identify, mistakenly or otherwise, as feminis

ts. Men can't define for feminists who is and who isn't likely affected by misandry. That's women's responsibility.

NOT that anyone should expel misandrists from the movement if it's just an error, of course, just that that sort of thing CAN happen and awareness is good. And even if it isn't just an error, feminism should be for women, so the main thing that would be necessary is to just recognize misandry to whatever degree of probability, *IF* that's the case, for what it is, without judging it personally.

That's a good discussion to have and I think the article cited in OP suggests that. Kind of like teachers do, or good teachers that is; you just state honest accountable behavioral descriptors without personal judgements attached. And if personal judgements do become necessary somehow, all that is needed is that they are identified as such, "My bias is _______________", "This is my personal evaluation ____________" so that, as the movement develops, others don't assume that such a voice is speaking for the entire social effort and others can ascertain the position of a given voice within the wider discourse.

The more specifically concrete and functional the descriptive language, the less loaded the language, the more functional for discussion it is. That kind of language CAN still be very strong, but keeping it out of the realm of personal attack is what frees the discussion to say more and more and go deeper and wider. There are no limits in an effort to discover what reality might be, even the extent to which that effort is being colored/skewed this way or that is a useful part of the discussion, as long as ground rules about considering one's own biases and avoiding personal attack are respected.

[ismnotwasm]

85. That's interesting and smart

But I read bias, and I think 'privilege' --something, apparently, that many people think doesn't exist, or that it no longer exists.

Conversations get stalled on that point alone. I wonder what would come out of using 'bias' instead? It would require the same deep down look inside seeing ones own privilege dies, only from a different angle.

[patrice]

86. I'm for whatever works to be as honestly INCLUSIVE of women as possible. It might also help if

everyone knows that just about everyone else accepts the fact that each one of us is not perfect, mistakes and even bad intents are practically unavoidable. Something else that I hypothesize is pretty fundamentally feminine is a sense of how important small things are. That's important because it implies that my "small" mistakes/bad-intentions are just as significant, relative to their own negative effects, as most "big" mistakes/bad-intentions. There are no absolutes, so of course there are situations in which this is not true, but on an average it is a good starting point for most relationships, or at least I think it is, because it puts each of us at the same starting point and then what happens after that is up to those involved in the relationship.

[Arcanetrance]

59. I don't think any feminists I've ever met hated men as a whole.

They hate those of us that decide we want to be complete ignorant asshats and quite frankly I can't blame them. In fact I think most of the rest of the male population should stand shoulder to shoulder with feminists and show solidarity against them. The problem is that society portrays feminists in an atrocious light. When they are shown on TV their caricatures their overly butch or just in need of a guy to fix them. Until we change that portrayal and start educating men on the truth of the world around us to paraphrase the article the double edged sword of patriarchy it's hurting everyone.

[seabeyond]

60. ya. the problem. speak up and watch the shit fly, lol. i wanted to say, i do not know i have hated

anyone. ever. i do not really connect with that one. i almost always/always, see something in the person, spirit to spirit. so i do not know that i can say i hate. not being pickiy, just wanted to say out loud.

[Arcanetrance]

61. I posted a thread in gd a few weeks back voicing my thoughts on the guys here that act that way.

It sunk faster than a rock. The only people that recd it at all were from this group.

[seabeyond]

62. lol lol. when i saw your name, i could nto remember the specific but i remembered

an ally. can you easily find the link.

[Arcanetrance]

63. I can look through my posts

Here it is [link:http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022522593|

[seabeyond]

64. yes. i remember. you and other men spoke up. and still, the guys and their supporters continued a

lyin' ass game with that. like with richards. like with this latest one. jsut a bunch of game playing.

thank you for that OP. it was very good. and appreciated.

[Arcanetrance]

65. I was bothered to see how many hours just rejected the entire discussion.

I always figured when I became a progressive and liberal I was aligning myself with guys like myself who supported feminists and rejected sexism in all forms.

[seabeyond]

66. my bad. me too. and it took me years to see thru the haze of continually being told by liberal men

they were feminists as i watched their behavior state the absolute opposite.

then, when sexist OPs would come up, and people would point at republican men i started flat out saying, not a party issue, it is a man issue.

that became a problem being on du.

[geek tragedy]

78. There are women who don't care for men as a group, just as there are African-Americans who

don't trust/like white people etc.

That's part of belonging to a privileged group. Compared to stuff like fear of being raped, being resented for privilege is really not a great burden to bear.