N.B. misandry is not real because men are not systemically oppressed (uninternalize your reddit MRA today: men suffer some drawbacks under the patriarchy but ultimately still maintain it due to the large amount of privileges they receive under it!)
N.B. misandry is not real because men are not systemically oppressed (uninternalize your reddit MRA today: men suffer some drawbacks under the patriarchy but ultimately still maintain it due to the large amount of privileges they receive under it!)
"If it's not systematic it doesn't exist" doesn't make sense and is a losing argument, anyway. You don't have to stake out the complete opposite position of reactionary weirdos to refute them.
Unless you have a better explanation, you have to now believe anti-white racism, heterophobia, cisphobia, etc. are all real too.
First, I'm not talking about imagined or trivial griecances. Obviously "she didn't talk to me at the bar, that's misandry" is bullshit.
But if a guy is passed over for hiring or promotion because the job is traditionally regarded as a woman's job, or is assigned less-desirable work on the basis of gender, yeah, that's misandry, even if it isn't systematic, and even though women face far more significant (and systematic) prejudice. Does "if it's not systematic it doesn't exist" mean that prejudice didn't happen, and didn't adversely effect someone's employment? If that prejudice did happen, why would we not talk about it using the word that describes that type of prejudice? "If it's not systematic it doesn't exist" is nonsensical.
It's also just a losing argument. It's extremely easy to dispute "this thing we have a word for doesn't even exist." It's much harder to dispute "women face far more prejudice than men," and then the conversation includes all the types of prejudice women face, which should be the focus anyway.
no, that's patriarchy and still systemic. the expectation of men to fulfill specific dominant roles in society is a consequence of a gendered hierarchy, not the whims of individuals. were there absolutely no gendered stereotypes or expectations for a position, and a man was passed over on account of being a man, that could be an example of individualistic misandry... but i can't even think of an example for that. like every job ever has these arbitrary prejudices
We agree this type of prejudice is bad, so why even argue that misandry doesn't exist? Arguing definitions is not a good way to talk to people about these issues.
Compare:
With this:
why attempt to cede to a misunderstanding in order to get a 'foot in the door' to talk to someone instead of fully and correctly explaining it? i'll cosign on not jumping to calling a random man a reactionary for expressing their feelings of constraint and friction under patriarchy, but sympathetic rhetoric should not compromise the central ideas of the theory. you wouldn't teach LTV without explaining the limitations of supply-demand curves
There is no "correct" here. It's social theory; we don't have a provable, exact answer, we're dealing with words and definitions that people use in multiple ways. The terminology is far less important than getting agreement on the sentiment, and eventually getting people to take action in a better direction.
So what's the use of arguing that this concept that already exists in language isn't actually real? To me, the only difference between the two example statements I gave above is that more people will tune out the latter (even if you drop the accusation of being reactionary, which is hard to imagine in practice).
what's wrong if some people use rhetoric that rejects misandry vs. not then? clearly the former still works or there wouldn't be people advocating it here
but i'll explain how this discourse functions anyway: misandry is semantically coequal to misogyny. they have the same prefix and suffix, they're used the same way. it is not unreasonable to think these equivalent words describe equivalent things, that's how words usually work. what i want to avoid is validating this, because it does not reflect reality. in rejecting misandry, we hop over the semantic hurdle and contextualize struggles of men in the system of oppression they live in, where it is never unclear whose oppression is salient--patriarchy.
"Misandry doesn't exist" is a debatable position that gets you little or nothing even if you win the argument. From what I've seen, statements like this also lead to unproductive turns like "and if you disagree you're a reactionary" in a way "misandry is a symptom of patriarchy" doesn't.
Fair point, but it's easily cleared up by saying that misogyny exists systematically in a way misandry doesn't.
i don't think this thread would have so many comments if this was true
in any case i don't think we're fundamentally at odds having chased this argument into the very small redoubt of 'what pedagogy works best', i won't complain if you teach a man to be less shit with "misandry is a symptom of patriarchy"
Another fine day on Hexbear!
BTW if the job is traditionally regarded as a woman's job, it also pays like shit because traditional women's jobs are ones that are socially necessary, but not economically productive. Is there discrimination against men in nursing or child daycare? Well, yes, i've seen some of that when i was working in nursery pre-transition, i've had friends see some of that when they worked in childcare pre-transition, although in both fields it has a tendency to invert once you've clawed your way up to a middle management position. But the conditions in these jobs, regardless of whether men or women do them, are a product of how systemic misogyny is used to devalue care labor and outsource it to a permanent underclass.
Those are all real they're just far less common and are minor in comparison to their "complement". They tend to be an internalized reaction to that complement even, of recognizing who primarily targets you and makes you unsafe.
They lack systemic power but that doesn't change whether they exist as prejudices and in the ways we interact with one another.
There are also situations in which localized power structures for them do exist. Small groups like clubs or sports teams. Obviously a smaller impact but still real and still alienating.
Reminds me of some commentary from a guest on a recent
:
If your position is "if it's not systematic it doesn't exist," you have to explain around this, you have to explain around the localized power structures you mention, you get into long analyses of what systematic and individualized mean, etc.
The much stronger position is that prejudice based on immutable characteristics is bad, period, but that prejudices harm different groups to different degrees.
This isn't much stronger.
If "misandric" beliefs save a woman from being beaten, r*ped, or murdered, the belief has served a beneficial social purpose, even if the emergent behavior is socially harmful.
(I understand every racist is itching to repackage this argument)
Prejudice is just a stand-in for knowledge. The lack of (or aversion to) knowledge is the actual social ill.
Racist tendencies, both individual and systemic, can arise without prejudice. Racism isn't just emergent prejudice and would still exist if all prejudices were wiped from people's minds.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
deleted by creator