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!)
i see where he asked how it applied to him, but i don't understand how it's silencing or a defense of patriarchy, could you elaborate?
It's not one of those "I am defending patriarchy" moments.
Its more the conditioned response of "what about me, a [member of the dominant group]?" whenever liberation or the conditions of the oppressed are being discussed.
It is in effect a defense of patriarchy, regardless of the benevalence of intentions of the poster.
Notice that, even here on Hexbear, the conversation is centered on whether misandry is real rather than ways to tackle the problems of systemic violence against women.
i still don't understand how it's doing a defense of patriarchy. i'm not even bringing edge's intention into it. he asked about himself in reply to a comment that was already about the suffering of men under patriarchy so i'm not even sure it was derailing the way we usually mean talking about men making discussions about feminism about themselves.
The OP is about these ideas not being equal, the way the tweet is written takes misandry for granted and rightly says they are not equivalent. We don't organize on here, the "what is to be done" kinda shit is basic stuff that everybody already knows like the men here not themselves doing violence, yelling at people we should probably stop being friends with, and running our orgs so it doesn't happen (or holding them accountable if necessary) and there's not really any conversation to have there unless someone has a specific question about running orgs or deradicalizing someone.
It's reaffirming the centrality of men, that he, as a man, has to be considered in his particular case as a matter of course in this discussion. You might disagree and think that it was an appropriate place for such a question; however, there is also an implicit refutation of the claim that men are trained to inflict suffering by asking how he has been if he never leaves his house. It's honestly kind of a non-sequitur; you don't have to be engaged in inflicting suffering to have been trained to do so.