You'd have to be willfully ignorant of context, history and systemic power dynamics to think misandry is a threat to men in the same way misogyny is a threat to... well, everyone.
If I was an animator I would make the best Fleentstones episode ever
i've spent years being the greatest and funniest poster on the bear site and i've never achieved a tagline
the fascist mods are censoring me
it's actually transphobia how we are always passed by when it comes to taglines
smdh be better bear site
If misandry isn't real then why do I hate men? Checkmate liberal
I tend to argue that most of the issues of our time come down to supremacism being the biggest threat. Misogyny and patriarchy are features of male-supremacy, a movement that has dominated for centuries.
Hating men is a thing and honestly those women tend to have reasonable reasons for it but there is no real female-supremacy movement. Their participation is only in breaking male-supremacy.
Almost every issue of our time can be broken down into factions of supremacists vs those who oppose supremacism. Gender is a male-supremacist issue, lgbt is a hetero-supremacist cis-supremacist issue that ties into the male-supremacist issue.
To understand whether or not something should be entertained by the left you should simply analyse it under this framework. The term misandry is used exclusively by the male-supremacists has a means of painting part of their opposition as "too extreme". Which is rich when they are male-supremacists and these women they point the misandry finger at are just fighting against that.
Maybe you can find a person or two who will say
"I believe in female-supremacy" but there is NO movement for it, no organisation for it, and it will never ever happen.Now, look at our current global positions on imperialism. We understand that the biggest issue is imperialism which is again a supremacist issue (west/white). Under this we understand that there are two positions, the pro-supremacist side and the opposition to supremacy. We come down on the side of the opposition, 100% of the time, even when they're imperfect, and we call it "critical support". I argue that these are the same things, and that the position anyone should take with regards to it should be the same. The people the supremacists call misandrists are the assad and iran of gender-supremacy issues and our position on them should be identical to our position on imperialism. The supremacists scream about them because they recognise a potential group to peel away from their opposition, which disunites their opponent, which weakens their opponent.
Misandry is generally just a word used to browbeat the feminist movement into being less radical and thus less effective as an opposition to male-supremacy. But if anyone does exist that is functionally as bad as the male-supremacists claim that misandrists are then the correct position is still critical-support in the framework of anti-patriarchy, matching the framework of critical support for problematic sections of anti-imperialism used as movement-splitting.
Anyway most people I see getting called misandrists don't actually hate men, they hate male-supremacy and this is painted by the supremacists as hating men. If your position is opposition to misandry then this immediately backfoots you by forcing you to argue about how someone is not a misandrist. If your position is critical-support to them anyway then this just becomes "I don't care because the primary issue is defeating male-supremacy" and is barely a speedbump.
EDIT: Also if you bring critical-support into other movements you normalise it and unify strategy. It becomes very easy for people from one movement against supremacy to join other movements against supremacy because it all maps 1 to 1. We should be doing the same thing, in every movement. You want feminists to come over to anti-imperialism? Well if they're using all the same strategies and analysis we use in anti-imperialism then when you explain anti-imperialism to them it all becomes "aha that makes sense!" much more quickly.
Yep, it's the same process as
complaining about "anti-white racism." It's an utter nothing-burger, pure reactionary thinking.It's literally the exact same shit, opressors complaining they can't opress in peace. And it's pervasive, we've already had one ban in the anti-misogyny thread because of this.
I have been thoroughly disappointed in myself for thinking Hexbear wasn't misogynistic, and yet seeing all these he/hims come out and out themselves as terrible people has been eye-opening.
To be fair, never saw the cheating thread tho
I have been thoroughly disappointed in myself for thinking Hexbear wasn't misogynistic
I'm kind of in the same boat. These last few days have been kind of wild.
Just means we need to read feminist theory and be extra critical, rather than always assuming the best from HB users. /c/womenby already has theory up, I recommend checking it out!
I've actually been meaning to add more feminist theory to my library. I do have Caliban and the Witch. Gonna head there now.
E: Caliban is the one they have posted lol...
Grabbed it too. I'm working through an anarchist theory block right now and then plan on some more Marxism and philosophy, but after that I was already planning on working through some feminist theory. So both of those seem like a good start. I'd still like to find something based on what Engels touched on at the end of Is The Origin of The Family, Private Property and The State about what post-communism marriage equality might look like. I might also add The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir but it's a bit lengthy.
I respectfully disagree. Race and gender discrimination play out differently, they are different things. While there might be similarities, there is just a fundamental difference in how these forms of discrimination work.
For instance, most large cultural groups still in existence today have some element of patriarchy, this extends globally across racial and ethnic lines, in different ways but still patriarchical. If we take marriage for instance, in a traditional Westernised church wedding, the bride wears white to symbolise purity, the bride is handed off to the groom by her father, etc. I'm sure we can all see the patriarchical values on display here, where women are viewed as under the control of men.
Now if we look at another cultural practice with regards to marriage, and I'll be using a practice I'm familiar with in South Africa practiced by quite a few different cultural groups here, the practice of lobola. In this practice, the family of the groom, offers a gift to the family of the bride before the marriage. In the past this was usually cattle, but these days it's usually a monetary gift. Traditionally this practice is a very formal one with strict rules, negotiations and dignity and respect between the two prospective families. Though many view the practice as a way to unite the two families and not as a payment for the bride, and in modern times, even to fund the wedding or help the prospective bride and groom start their lives, it's not hard to see how this could be expoilted or viewed in a patriarchical way, viewing women as a possession to be bought and haggled over. Hell, my phone's autocorrect even suggested the word "buyer" instead of family at times.
Where I'm going with this is, is that many will be able to see the influence of patriarchy in someone else's culture, while being blind to the patriarchy in their own culture, which leads to gender and racial discrimination manifesting themselves in different ways. If we go back to my example, many white people in South Africa or white foreigners, even people who consider themselves to be socially progressive and feminist, would be the first to call out the patriarchical practices of black South Africans, while engaging in their own culture's patriarchical practices with no self awareness. For example, I remember reading a story about a white American woman who wanted to marry a Xhosa man, who was appalled by the their traditional practices in this regard, and didn't want to wear their traditional dress or participate in a Xhosa wedding. What she wanted instead? A traditional Western marriage where she wore a white dress with her father walking her down the aisle, with bridesmaids and all. I'm sure we can all see the irony here.
In general, this is why I disagree with the idea that discrimination along the lines of race, gender, and sexual orientation are the same. I often hear or read about egalitarian liberals in the West saying "how can black people be homophobic/transphobic, they have the experience of being discriminated against for being a minority, how can they do the same thing to another group of people", which is just a shortsighted and narrow way of looking at it, and also shows how racial discrimination is not the same as discrimination along the lines of sexual orientation. The "oppressor/oppressed" dynamic is just different. People across different cultures are probably homophobic for very similar reasons, the human condition, with all its flaws and ugliness included, is universal to a certain extent after all. Just because one group has experienced discrimination in the past, that does not mean that people who are a part of that cultural group or identity immune from discriminating against others in future. One can also simultaneously be a victim of one form of discrimination while engaging in discrimination against another group of people. One example that instantly comes to mind today would be LGBT people supporting Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people.
Just to clarify: I wasn't equating misogyny and racism, i was equating the deflection tactic at play behind the terms misandry and anti-white racism. Both rely on the same mechanism of victim blaming and silencing, even when the experiences of the victims, their societal positions and the historic context their marginalization play out in often are starkly different.
99% of people quit trying just before they can achieve real real misandry. Keep your head in thr game and we can get there someday
Every man I've seen call feminism a "man-hating movement" always ends up being one of the most vile, objectifying, discriminatory, and, well, hateable pieces of shit imaginable. If they think feminism is "man-hating," then perhaps instead of complaining about "misandry," they should be less hateable.
The sheer number of men who seemingly lack the baseline of just the mere ability to view women as people is disgusting. "Misandry" is a response to this disgusting behavior, obviously.
Sometimes, you do get TERFs and shitstain feminists who don't understand theory and will be bioessentialist as a way to turn "man-hating" into transphobia, but these people misunderstand the dialectic just as much as people who complain about misandry do.
Patriarchy is the problem in all cases, essentialism is a tool of its abuses, and trying to use essentialism as a counter to it, like TERFs do, is just adding fuel to the fire, as the problem is rooted in the system and not essentialism.
It reminds me of how I cringe when I see POC promote racial essentialism as a way to assert that white people are inherently inferior. As much as I love complaining about cracKKKers systemically, using essentialism to fight the power structures that use essentialism to oppress in the first place will only generate more oppression.
Essentialism delenda est!
Every man I've seen call feminism a "man-hating movement" always ends up being one of the most vile, objectifying, discriminatory, and, well, hateable pieces of shit imaginable.
There's an old saying: a thief believes everyone steals.
Dudebros that call feminism a "man-hating movement" lack the ability to even conceive other perspectives or ways of thinking and can only construct crude imitations of themselves in other people. Make of that what you will.
Wtf is up with the random ass outbreak of incelivitis?
Are the men on this site ok? Do I need to post some Stavros Halkias clips?
The easiest way to weed out any form of reactionary sentiment is to call out that kind of sentiment and then bring the hammer down. We've seen this in earlier purges like the pronoun struggles, you can observe the same thing every time in any space where somebody brings up a topic reactionaries find "controversial". People with the views that are called out will feel offended and double down, and it's always in really obvious, blatantly mask off ways. When i've seen misogyny on this site before, it was usually a lot more vague and between the lines, now we have posters outright saying chud shit like
examples from the mod log
"misandrist drivel" or "women who are free to date who they want are an existential threat to me" or "nonbinary people can't be lesbians".
women who are free to date who they want are an existential threat
Didn't the creep who said this, found in the modlog, whine that his life was somewhere between Gattaca and... I forgot what else but it was just screaming Main Character Syndrome with Jordan Peterson characteristics?
What the fuck is that second mod log entry how could someone on this site write that
Well he also seems to like the DDR, except for the part where women were financially secure when they divorced their husbands.
The incelivitis was always there, the "outbreak" came from people calling it out, which causes them to out themselves.
Are the men on this site ok?
No
Do I need to post some Stavros Halkias clips?
Probably
The men on this site were never okay, tbh. We’ve been complaining about the misogyny problem on the trans mega for months, and I’m sure it was a problem before I came here too.
i’m going to just repost what i said on the last thread debunking misandry lol.
Show
I remember when this topic was brought up a few months ago and some “enlightened centrist” men kept trying to debatebro the position that misandry technically exists because some women do not like men (because of their experiences with misogyny), forgetting that misogyny is waaaaaaay more than that lmao. Imagine if misogyny was just “sometimes a man does not like me” instead of a whole system of continual oppression and abuse.
What the hell did I miss now? Why would this even be something to debate? Misandry has always been reactionary bullshit.
Just doing my duty of catching any straggling misogynists hanging around the site. I like to see them rage.
Keep up the good work Comrade Dirt_Owl
Kind of embarrassing that it needed to be done.
Thank you for your service, comrade @Dirt_Owl@hexbear.net
The gender market has been real bearish lately, alot of local incels selling their mgtow stocks
Me after googling mgtow because I didn't know it was a thing:
The fucking "man-o-sphere" is real, isn't it?
“Misandry” always ends up actually being either misdiagnosed classism, self-inflicted wounds from the patriarchy, or schadenfreude over seeing celebrities fall because they’re celebrities.
Speaking of such things, everyone talks like that’s some entirely new phenomenon in Hollywood but overlooks that Fatty Arbuckle’s career got canned a century ago over false sexual assaults allegations. People being gossipy over the famous is not an attack on men as a whole.
if i encounter someone who uses the word misandry it means i have encountered a redditor so i know i can turn off my brain and stop listening to them
Men are arguably being discriminated against in the childcare sector, that's basically it. If you're a man and want to work at a daycare or as an elementary school teacher, you might have a disadvantage because of your gender and experience prejudice. In that sense, structural misandry technically does exist. I guess you could make a case for women being more likely to win custody in divorce court also being structural misandry?
But that's not what people who complain about misandry tend to talk about lmao
Edit: Also I agree, even putting misandry and misogyny in the same category is laughable. The existence of the former is a technicality and calling it a "structural issue" would be silly.
I kinda disagree. If you look at other roles that women get shoehorned into (housekeepers, cooks, nurses) you won't find the same dynamics there.
Patriarchy dictates that women are only capable of staying at home, cooking and cleaning, but even within those tasks it still considers men to be just as if not more qualified. Restaurants don't prefer female cooks over male ones and janitorial services don't prefer women either.
Childcare is (afaik) the only sector where women are genuinely believed to be more qualified and capable than men.
Childcare is also seen as lowly women's work that isn't a real job or something that deserves real pay.
I'm not sure it's discrimination if a man doesn't get to work a job that pays so low he has to sell blood plasma on the side.
Like I said in my original comment, this is little more than a technicality in the grand scheme of things. I think it is discrimination when you want to work a job in a certain field and are disadvantaged because of your gender, but I'd still laugh in the face of someone who put misandry on a list of structural issues.
I think this is Republican Motherhood and its consequences.
The role of women as educators might be traced back to this movement within early America. It is, in some ways, a contradictory ideology. Simultaneously reinforcing the existing patriarchal notions of women's work, but also demanding education for women so they might subsume the role of the educator and place that responsibility under the umbrella of the primary caretaker of the families/communities children. Its ideological framing being that of building a strong republic through building virtuous families.
I'm sure a clear line could be drawn from this movement to women being the primary demographic in grade level education. Elementary School has the highest disparity, while secondary schools have a closer distribution but still a decent gap (roughly 20%). Higher Education is the most evenly split.
The age of the student I think plays a huge role. Elementary School students are still very young. Its hard to say how exactly that has an impact on the demographic split, but it feels like it does.
Could this be a result of little kids being viewed as closer to "babies" then not, and as such closer to a mothers / women's responsibility? Or could this be a fear driven pattern of behavior, where men are viewed as predators and thus are avoided?
I personally know a young man who works in daycare with little kids, who has expressed his desire to be an Elementary teacher, but is also aware that some people are clearly more cautious of him in that role as a man. He's not the only man at the daycare, but they are a very small percentage of the staff.
I have read accounts of male daycare workers having to abide by special rules at their center, such as not being able to change a child's diaper. But now I'm heading into anecdotal territory.
Its a hard topic to pin down. I think the caution and distrust of men in these early education roles is a real phenomenon, but to what degree I'm unsure.
It's also unclear how many men have simply convinced themselves that these "realities" are real and ever present, and as such avoid these roles all together. Or what percentage of men see daycare and elementary education as "women's work" from the jump and never consider it a valid path for them.
I have no real answers here. No strong conclusions. I think this topic is one worth digging deep into though, to find where fiction ends and fact begins.
Could this be a result of little kids being viewed as closer to "babies" then not, and as such closer to a mothers / women's responsibility? Or could this be a fear driven pattern of behavior, where men are viewed as predators and thus are avoided?
I think it's both. I think people both see women as more capable of raising and caring for young children and are also wary of predatory men.
Probably false. I am a man in a tradionally female sector of work and people instinctively treat me better. I find it embarassing mostly.
Data shows men tend to be overvalued in fields like thisChildcare workers are literally paid less than minimum wage in my country.
And it always cracks me up when men complain about not being chosen as much for jobs in elementary and high schools.
It's like, okay, first of all I see plenty of male teachers around, and second of all even if that is true, men are more likely to get a job as a University teacher or in higher education than women, you know, the only teaching jobs where you are paid more than minimum wage.
Childcare workers are literally paid less than minimum wage in my country.
Oh yeah, absolutely. If you zoom out even a tiny bit, men still come out ahead.
you know, the only teaching jobs where you are paid more than minimum wage.
Oddly in the US, its the other way around. Colleges have moved towards hiring "adjunct faculty" to be teachers, often paying around minimum wage. While lower schools (at least around here), typically pay more than double minimum wage, often more than triple (even assuming teachers work 52 weeks a year without any breaks/vacations). Researchers (if they can keep a constant flow of grants) and coaches get paid well in universities, but that's not for teaching.
But yeah... high schools seem to have no problem with male teachers. Elementary, idk. Might just be men don't seek those positions because of the assumption they won't be allowed?
While lower schools (at least around here), typically pay more than double minimum wage, often more than triple
This varies wildly based on state. I’m in a state where this is true because teachers’ unions still have a strong presence here. But there are states where making triple minimum wage as an elementary teacher is a pipe team or where their minimum wage is still $7.25/hour so that’s less significant
This varies wildly based on state. In my case, its more local based - its not even true state-wide, much less a general rule (and also minimum wage here is $7.25/hr). Teacher unions here are quite limited. But there's a few districts with relatively academically demanding communities (aka: wealthier districts), and I'm guessing the areas around it basically are forced to compete for hiring.
where their minimum wage is still $7.25/hour so that’s less significant
Doesn't change the comparison to adjuncts who don't even make that due to all of the unpaid hours needed to do a good job.
That doesn't make it good or acceptable pay. Especially given the training and everything that goes into it, like dealing with classrooms full of kids who often don't want to be there.
It's like, okay, first of all I see plenty of male teachers around
My primary school didn't have a single male teacher, and my secondary school had I think three out of fifty or so, and it's not an isolated experience in the UK (the secondary school was a little unusual. )
Apparently, 76% of teachers in the UK are women, and 25% of schools have no male teachers at all.
As a chronic pedant who avoids speaking in absolutes to the point I consider it a character flaw this makes sense to me. No issue with accurately emphasizing how it's on a massively lower scale of course
